Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluations

1
Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluations

• Rex L. Powell
• Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory
• Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
  MD
• rpowell_at_aipl.arsusda.gov

2
Interbull Formed

• IDF and EAAP activities
• 1982 - Leningrad meeting
• 1983 - Interbull formed
• 1988 - Became ICAR committee
• 1991 - Centre established

3
Interbull Centre

• Site Uppsala, Sweden
• Responsibilities and activities
• Steering committee sets policy
• General operations by staff
• Global service provider

4
Interbull Evaluation Process

• National evaluations sent to Centre
• MACE combines pedigree and national
  evaluation data
• Estimated genetic correlations applied
• Evaluations returned to countries on their own
  scale
• Officiality responsibility of countries

5
Countries Participating in Service
6
Numbers of Countries per Bull
100
94.6
80
60
Percentage of Bulls
40
20
3.8
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Number of countries
7
Question

• Do foreign data aid in prediction of future
  national evaluations?

8
Study Design
1995
1999
9
Study Design
1995
1999
r
SD
r
SD
10
Data

• February 1995 Interbull evaluations
• National 1995 evaluations
• National 1999 evaluations
• Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, USA

11
Answers

• Foreign data improved prediction
• Improvement greatest for imported bulls
• Interbull evaluations should be official

12
Top 100 Bulls for Yield (USA)Based on Official
Evaluations
Location Protein Fat Milk
USA USA 47 35 67
NLD NLD 23 29 7
FRA FRA 8 7 6
ITA ITA 1 1 1
DEU DEU 3 11 5
CAN CAN 2 4 5
DNK DNK 3 2 2
Others Others 13 11 7
Top-100 Bulls with US Sires Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 65 49 89
Source Interbull and domestic, February 2001
13
Top 100 Bulls for Yield (NLD)Based on Official
Evaluations
Location Protein Fat Milk
USA USA 24 13 48
NLD NLD 47 59 19
FRA FRA 14 5 11
ITA ITA 1 2 1
DEU DEU 1 6 7
CAN CAN 0 3 2
DNK DNK 3 4 3
Others Others 10 8 9
Top-100 Bulls with US Sires Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 42 33 74
Source Interbull and domestic, February 2001
14
Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CAN)Based on Official
Evaluations
Location Protein Fat Milk
USA USA 40 16 52
NLD NLD 26 34 8
FRA FRA 10 11 7
ITA ITA 2 1 1
DEU DEU 4 10 8
CAN CAN 5 8 11
DNK DNK 2 3 3
Others Others 11 17 10
Top-100 Bulls with US Sires Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 54 27 83
Source Interbull and domestic, February 2001
15
Top 100 Bulls for Yield (HUN)Based on Official
Evaluations
Location Protein Fat Milk
USA USA 31 12 42
NLD NLD 20 32 8
FRA FRA 18 12 13
ITA ITA 4 2 2
DEU DEU 7 18 13
CAN CAN 3 4 7
DNK DNK 4 4 4
Others Others 13 16 11
Top-100 Bulls with US Sires Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 63 30 82
Source Interbull, February 2001
16
Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CSK)Based on Official
Evaluations
Location Protein Fat Milk
USA USA 22 15 34
NLD NLD 30 29 13
FRA FRA 16 10 8
ITA ITA 3 1 6
DEU DEU 3 17 10
CAN CAN 7 5 10
DNK DNK 4 5 3
Others Others 15 18 16
Top-100 Bulls with US Sires Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 41 38 76
Source Interbull, February 2001
17
Use of Reliability

• Measure of accuracy
• Guides how much to use a bull, not whether to use
  a bull
• Minimum restricts the number of bulls
• Limiting bulls limits progress

18
Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls Mean
PTAP of Top 50 (USA)
Minimum REL Number of Bulls PTAP (top 50)
(all) 0 65472 72
60 61380 72
70 54312 71
75 49707 71
80 30121 69
85 14167 66
90 4348 59
Source Interbull, May 2001
19
Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls Mean
PTAP of Top 50 (HUN)
Minimum REL Number of Bulls PTAP (top 50)
(all) 0 65472 60
60 60708 60
70 44982 59
75 26078 57
80 6070 52
85 1203 47
90 208 32
Source Interbull, May 2001
20
Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls Mean
PTAP of Top 50 (CSK)
Minimum REL Number of Bulls PTAP (top 50)
(all) 0 65472 66
60 59242 66
70 35203 65
75 7395 59
80 1681 54
85 837 50
90 457 47
Source Interbull, May 2001
21
Websites

• interbull.org
• Publications bulletins
• Evaluation summaries
• aipl.arsusda.gov
• Documents
• Downloadable files
• Access to all evaluations

22
Conclusions

• Interbull Centre young and growing
• Rankings differ by country
• Foreign data improve prediction of later national
  evaluations
• Most gain is from considering all bulls on one
  scale
• Challenges remain in technical areas and in
  education

23
Foreign Bull Options

• Top 100 on HGI
• HGI as high as 10th HUN bull and
• HUN REL 75 for production
• HUN REL 70 for conformation
• Nominated and approved

24
Foreign Bulls In Out

• 367 bulls on HGI combined list
• Includes 68 of top 200 on US Net Merit
• Bulls from all countries eligible for US NM list
• 6 of top 12 for NM not included on HGI list
  (among them 2)
• 3 of top 8 on TPI not included
• 1 not included

25
Foreign Bulls Excluded
Hungarian1 Hungarian1 Foreign Foreign
Name Ctry. Protein REL REL2 Daus
Elite Mt Donor Imp Elite Mt Donor Imp AUS 66 68 90 128
Etazon Lambro Etazon Lambro EST 51 74 96 284
Looster Looster FRA 50 70 91 108
Pen-Col Decision Pen-Col Decision USA 51 73 91 109
Pckstn. E. Curtis Pckstn. E. Curtis USA 45 73 90 116
Kemview Beauty Kemview Beauty USA 40 71 87 96
Sildahl BW D. Boy Sildahl BW D. Boy USA 57 70 87 96
1Protein and REL from Hungarian scaled
MACE 2Reliability of evaluation in home country
of bull
26
Reliabilities on Hungarian Scale
US REL Hungarian REL Hungarian REL
US REL Expected Actual
75 58 62
80 62 66
85 66 69
90 70 73
92 71 74
94 73 75
96 74 77
98 76 78
99 77 79