M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

2001 PLACE, DATE (1) Cow Fertility and Effect on Longevity PAUL VANRADEN Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

Advertisements

Modeling nuisance variables for phenotypic evaluation of bull fertility M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and H. D. Norman* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,

Factors affecting milk ELISA scores of cows tested for Johne’s disease H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, and T. M. Byrem 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs.

Impact of selection for increased daughter fertility on productive life and culling for reproduction H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright*, R. H. Miller Animal Improvement.

2005 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD AIPL Projects.

ADSA 2002 (HDN-P1) 2002 Comparison of occurrence and yields of daughters of progeny-test and proven bulls in artificial insemination and natural- service.

2003 Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker,* Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

Effects of complex vertebral malformation gene on production and reproduction M. T. Kuhn*, J. L. Hutchison, and C. P. Van Tassell Animal Improvement Programs.

Impacts of inclusion of foreign data in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle K. M. Olson 1, P. M. VanRaden 2, D. J. Null 2, and M. E. Tooker 2 1 National.

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.

2007 ADSA 2007 (1)H.D. Norman Effect of service sire and cow sire on gestation length H.D. Norman,* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement.

 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.

Comparison of Holstein service-sire fertility for heifer and cow breedings with conventional and sexed semen H. D. Norman*, J. L. Hutchison, and P. M.

2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.

2003 G.R. Wiggans,* P.M. VanRaden, and J.L. Edwards Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

Assessment of voluntary waiting period and frequency of estrus synchronization among herds R.H. Miller, 1, * H.D. Norman, 1 M.T. Kuhn, 1 and J.S. Clay.

AFGC Convention 2004 (1) 2004 Possibilities for Improving Dairy Cattle Performance Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

REGRESSION MODEL y ijklm = BD i + b j A j + HYS k + b dstate D l + b sstate S l + b sd (S×SD m ) + b dherd F m + b sherd G m + e ijklm, y = ME milk yield,

2002 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Dairy Goat.

John B. Cole, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA The U.S. genetic.

2006 Paul VanRaden, John Cole, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD An Example from Dairy.

2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.

Genetic Evaluation of Lactation Persistency Estimated by Best Prediction for Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, and Milking Shorthorn Dairy Cattle J. B.

2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Synchronization Effects on Parameters for Days Open M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and R. H. Miller* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural.

2003 Melvin Tooker, Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.

Factors affecting heifer fertility in U.S. Holsteins M. T. Kuhn* and J. L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,

Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2006.

G.R. Wiggans* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

2003 P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluations.

2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (1) Is There a Need for Different Genetics in Dairy Grazing Systems? H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L.

Methodology for Prediction of Bull Fertility from Field Data M. T. Kuhn* and J. L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.

XX International Grassland Conference 2005 (1) 2005 Genetic Alternatives for Dairy Producers who Practise Grazing H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L. Powell.

J. B. Cole *, G. R. Wiggans, P. M. VanRaden, and R. H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

Prediction of Service Sire Fertility M.T. Kuhn 1 *, J.L. Hutchison 1, and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agriculture Research Service,

Paul VanRaden and John Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Planned Changes to Models and Trait Definitions.

H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright, and R.H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA

Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.

2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 NAAB Update : Base Change, Udder Health, Longevity,

Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.

ADSA 2002 (RHM-P1) 2002 R.H. Miller, ,1 H.D. Norman, 1 and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Multibreed Genomic Evaluation Using Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson* 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 Department of Dairy Science Virginia Polytechnic and State.

2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

2003 P.M. VanRaden* and M.E. Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Definition.

H.D. Norman* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and M.T. Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

2004 P.M. VanRaden, M.E. Tooker*, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD AIPL Contributions.

2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2007 Genetic evaluation.

G.R. Wiggans, T. A. Cooper* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

CRI – Spanish update (1) 2010 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4, Paul VanRaden 1, Curt.

2005 P.M. VanRaden and M.E. Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Effect.

2006 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (1) Trait Selection When Culling U.S. Holsteins H.D. Norman, J.L. Hutchison, J.R. Wright,

H.D. NORMAN,* R.L. POWELL, J.R. WRIGHT

Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3

Cross-Breeding What is X-Breeding?.

Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity

A National Sire Fertility Index

Percent of total breedings

Abstr. M4 Merit of obtaining genetic evaluations of milk yield for each parity on Holstein bulls H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* R.L. Powell, and P.M. VanRaden.

Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.

Effectiveness of genetic evaluations in predicting daughter performance in individual herds H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1*, C. D. Dechow 2 and R. C.

Measures of Fertility: Heritabilities and Genetic Correlations

3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada

Expected Progeny Difference EPD

Relationship of gestation length to stillbirth

Presentation transcript:

M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD Use of early lactation days open records for genetic evaluation of cow fertility M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD

Introduction - National genetic evaluation for female fertility introduced in February, 2003 - Evaluations are based on Days Open (DO) - Current requirement: Records must be a minimum of 250 days in milk

Reason for 250 DIM Requirement - Avoid potential bias - Sires poor for fertility: - Only best daughters available early in lactation  upward bias for poor sires

Consequence of 250 requirement: - Young bulls: - First proof for yield 40 days after daughters initiate first lactation - Must wait 7 more months for DPR evaluation

Objectives - Develop a predictor for DO - Determine how early in lactation it can be used

ß5*(DO based on last breeding) Prediction Equation ŷ = Intercept + Lactation + Calving Ease (CE) + ß1*Age + ß2*Age2 + ß3*Milk + ß4*Milk2 + ß5*(DO based on last breeding) - Models without milk yield also examined

Prediction Equation - Model is fit separately for each of 9 DIM groups: 70, 90, 110, 130, 150, 170, 190, 210, 230 Define: DO70 = DO based on breedings up to 70 DIM DO90 = DO based on breedings up to 90 DIM . . DO230 = DO based on breedings up to 230 DIM

Evaluation of the Predictor - Bias: Compare ŷ vs y - Cor(ŷ, y) - Phenotypic - Genetic - Compare: PTAŷ and PTAy

DATA - Years available: 1995-1999 3 main things to do: 1) Estimate effects in prediction model, solutions to be used to calculate ŷ’s 2) Estimate genetic correlations 3) Calculate PTAs: PTAy vs PTAŷ DATA - Breeding records from 4 DRPCs - Years available: 1995-1999 - Date of breeding, service sire, service number recorded for each service on each cow-lactation

Estimation of Genetic Correlations - Vars/Covs estimated using REML - Model for estimation: y = HYSP + Sire + e - 11 traits: Actual DO, DO70, DO90, …, DO230, Milk - Data from 1995-1998   670,000 records, 1000 sires

Comparing PTAs - Data from 1995-1998  375,000 records - Only 1998 records were predicted  127,000 predicted records - Animal model for calculation of PTAs: y = HYSP + A + PE + e

RESULTS Percentage of cows with a breeding by DIM Days Percent Cumulative % 70 36 36 90 25 61 110 15 76 130 9 85 150 5 90 170 3 93 . . . > 250 1.4 100

Phenotypic Comparisons Trait Mean Cor Actual 138.8 1 DO70 138.7 .28 DO90 138.1 .36 DO110 137.8 .44 DO130 137.9 .54 DO150 138.1 .63 DO170 138.3 .71 DO190 138.4 .78 DO210 138.5 .83 DO230 138.5 .88

Genetic Correlations of Predicted and Actual DO Prediction Model Day W/ Milk No Milk Mix 70 .73 .73 .74 90 .80 .80 .80 110 .85 .86 .86 130 .90 .91 .91 150 .94 .94 .94 170 .96 .97 .97 190 .98 .98 .98 210 .99 .99 .99 230 .99 .99 .99

Genetic Correlations of Predicted DO with Milk Prediction Model Day W/ Milk No Milk Mix 70 .42 .29 .36 90 .44 .33 .36 110 .45 .35 .36 130 .45 .36 .36 150 .42 .35 .35 170 .39 .34 .34 190 .38 .33 .33 210 .35 .32 .32 230 .34 .31 .31 Gen Cor of milk with Actual DO = .31

Cow PTAs Based on Actual vs Predicted Records Mean* DIM PTAŷ-PTAy Corr 110 -.06 .90 130 -.007 .92 150 .01 .93 110 -.10 .90 130 -.04 .91 150 -.01 .93 *Expressed in standard deviation units w/ Milk in ŷ for all records Milk if no brdg, No milk, o.w.

Sire PTAs Based on Actual vs Predicted Records1 Mean2 Corr Rank DIM PTAŷ-PTAy (PTAŷ, PTAy) Corr 110 -.06 .93 .92 130 -.008 .94 .93 150 .02 .95 .94 1 Predictor included milk if no breeding, no milk if with breeding 2 Expressed in standard deviation units

Conclusions 1. Projection of DO records will utilize: - Lactation - Calving ease score - Age - DO based on last breeding - Milk yield, if no breeding 2. Records can begin to be used at 130 DIM  Reduction of 4 months