2001 Interbull, August 2001 (1) Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluations Rex L. Powell...

20012001Interbull, August 2001 (1)

Usefulness of international Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluationsdairy bull evaluations

Rex L. PowellRex L. PowellAnimal Improvement Programs LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, [email protected]

Interbull Educational Tour 2001 (2) R. L. Powell 2001R. L. Powell 2001

Interbull FormedInterbull Formed

IDF and EAAP activities

1982 - Leningrad meeting

1983 - Interbull formed

1988 - Became ICAR committee

1991 - Centre established


Interbull CentreInterbull Centre

Site: Uppsala, Sweden

Responsibilities and activities: Steering committee sets policy General operations by staff Global service provider


Interbull Evaluation ProcessInterbull 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


Countries Participating in ServiceCountries Participating in Service

0

5

10

15

20

25

No

. co

un

trie

s

Aug-94

Aug-94

Aug-95

Aug-95

Aug-96

Aug-96

Aug-97

Aug-97

Aug-98

Aug-98

Feb-99

Feb-99

Aug-99

Aug-99

Evaluation date

Sending Receiving


Numbers of Countries per BullNumbers of Countries per Bull

94.6

3.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Bu

lls

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

Number of countries


QuestionQuestion

Do foreign data aid in prediction of future national evaluations?


Study DesignStudy Design

NATIONALNATIONAL

1995

NATIONALNATIONAL

1999

Data Best Predictor?


Study DesignStudy Design

NATIONALNATIONAL

NATIONALNATIONAL

1995 1999

r

SD

r

SD


DataData

February 1995 Interbull evaluations

National 1995 evaluations

National 1999 evaluations

Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, USA


AnswersAnswers

Foreign data improved prediction

Improvement greatest for imported bulls

Interbull evaluations should be official


Top 100 Bulls for Yield (USA)Top 100 Bulls for Yield (USA)Based on Official EvaluationsBased on Official Evaluations

Location Protein Fat MilkUSA 47 35 67NLD 23 29 7FRA 8 7 6ITA 1 1 1

DEU 3 11 5CAN 2 4 5DNK 3 2 2

Others 13 11 7

Top-100 Bulls with US Sires 65 49 89

Source: Interbull and domestic, February 2001


Top 100 Bulls for Yield (NLD)Top 100 Bulls for Yield (NLD)Based on Official EvaluationsBased on Official Evaluations


DEU 1 6 7CAN 0 3 2DNK 3 4 3

Others 10 8 9




Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CAN)Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CAN)Based on Official EvaluationsBased on Official Evaluations


DEU 4 10 8CAN 5 8 11DNK 2 3 3

Others 11 17 10




Top 100 Bulls for Yield (HUN)Top 100 Bulls for Yield (HUN)Based on Official EvaluationsBased on Official Evaluations


DEU 7 18 13CAN 3 4 7DNK 4 4 4

Others 13 16 11


Source: Interbull, February 2001


Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CSK)Top 100 Bulls for Yield (CSK)Based on Official EvaluationsBased on Official Evaluations


DEU 3 17 10CAN 7 5 10DNK 4 5 3

Others 15 18 16


Source: Interbull, February 2001


Use of ReliabilityUse of Reliability

Measure of accuracy

Guides how muchhow much to use a bull, not not whether to use a bull

Minimum restricts the number of bulls

Limiting bulls limits progress


Impact of Minimum REL Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (USA)On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (USA)

Minimum RELNumber 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


Impact of Minimum REL Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (HUN)On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (HUN)


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



Impact of Minimum REL Impact of Minimum REL On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (CSK)On Number of Bulls & Mean PTAP of Top 50 (CSK)


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



WebsitesWebsites

interbull.org Publications & bulletins Evaluation summaries

aipl.arsusda.gov Documents Downloadable files Access to all evaluations


ConclusionsConclusions 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


Foreign Bull OptionsForeign 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


Foreign Bulls In & OutForeign 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


Foreign Bulls ExcludedForeign Bulls Excluded

Hungarian1 Foreign

Name Ctry. Protein REL REL2 DausElite Mt Donor Imp AUS 66 68 90 128Etazon Lambro EST 51 74 96 284Looster FRA 50 70 91 108Pen-Col Decision USA 51 73 91 109Pckstn. E. Curtis USA 45 73 90 116Kemview Beauty USA 40 71 87 96Sildahl BW D. Boy USA 57 70 87 96

1Protein and REL from Hungarian scaled MACE2Reliability of evaluation in home country of bull


Reliabilities on Hungarian ScaleReliabilities on Hungarian Scale

US REL

Hungarian 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

Date post:	29-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	catherine-jones
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times