How to understand and use dairy goat performance data

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2006 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Genetic.
Advertisements

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.
2002 Paul M. VanRaden and Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
2003 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Dairy Goat.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.
ADSA 2002 (HDN-P1) 2002 Comparison of occurrence and yields of daughters of progeny-test and proven bulls in artificial insemination and natural- service.
But who will be the next GREAT one?. USA Bull Proofs * Bulls are ranked based upon their DAUGHTER’S (progeny) production and physical characteristics.
2007 Jana L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA
Hybrids and Purebreds in Agriculture Agriculture Biology.
India Emerging Markets Conference, May 2009 (1) Leigh Walton Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
2003 Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Interbull as a Tool.
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.
Wiggans, 2013Japanese Genomics Tour (1) Dr. George R. WiggansDr. H. Duane Norman Acting Research LeaderInterim Administrator Animal Improvement Programs.
Using EPDs in Selection Stolen and edited by: Brandon Freel and Daniel Powell Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.
 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.
NAAB Dairy Trade Mission (1) A.H. Sanders 2002 Ashley H. Sanders AIPL on the Web Accessing Data and aipl.arsusda.gov Animal Improvement Programs.
Norway (1) 2005 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,
2003 G.R. Wiggans,* P.M. VanRaden, and J.L. Edwards Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
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,
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Missouri Dairy Summit.
B66 Heritability, EPDs & Performance Data. Infovets Educational Resources – – Slide 2 Heritability  Heritability is the measurement.
2002 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Dairy Goat.
2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Overview.
2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD An Example from Dairy.
T. A. Cooper and G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Council.
Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,
2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
 Objective 7.03: Apply the Use of Production Records.
A.H. Sanders 2002 AIPL on the Web Accessing Data and aipl.arsusda.gov Ashley H. Sanders Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory.
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.
2006 H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
XX International Grassland Conference 2005 (1) 2005 Genetic Alternatives for Dairy Producers who Practise Grazing H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L. Powell.
7 th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod Selection of dairy cattle for lifetime profit Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.
2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
Vocabulary  Buck: An intact mature male goat  The _______ smelled terrible because it was breeding season.  Doe: A mature female goat  My _______ is.
Hybrids and Purebreds for Real Agriculture Biology.
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.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Select Sires‘ Holstein.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2011 National Breeders.
2006 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD USDA Genetic.
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.
Using EPDs in Selection Edited by: Jessica Hawley & Brandon Freel Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle Dr. Fred Rayfield Livestock Specialist Georgia Agricultural Education To accompany lesson.
2005 P.M. VanRaden and M.E. Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Effect.
Bull Selection: Beef Kay Farmer Madison County High School edited by Billy Moss and Rachel Postin July 2001.
Fundamentals of the Eurostar evaluations
Validation of €uro-Star Replacement Index.
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle
Cross-Breeding What is X-Breeding?.
USDA Dairy Goat Genetic Evaluation Program
Methods to compute reliabilities for genomic predictions of feed intake Paul VanRaden, Jana Hutchison, Bingjie Li, Erin Connor, and John Cole USDA, Agricultural.
Using EPDs in Selection
Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity
A National Sire Fertility Index
Can you believe those genomic evaluations for young bulls?
Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.
M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD
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.
Expected Progeny Differences
Genetic Evaluation of Milking Speed for Brown Swiss Dairy Cattle
3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada
Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy
Presentation transcript:

How to understand and use dairy goat performance data Improving Dairy Goats How to understand and use dairy goat performance data

Questions to Answer Where does the data come from and how does it get to us? What happens to the “numbers” once they leave the barn? How can this data be used to improve our animals? How can you make informed decisions on breeding? How can you choose a herd sire with the best chance for improving your animals? 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Overview Considerations Goat data flow AIPL-USDA processing Buck Data Doe Data Future Plans Resources Questions??? Demo 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Considerations Pros Cons Sure beats performance volumes! Data as soon as evaluations are released Many ways of viewing the data Cons Manual addition of goats without yield and/or type data Many does are only identified by Reg # 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Goat Data Flow 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz Milk Test Day Data (Yield) Linear Appraisal (Type) AIPL-USDA DRPC ADGA Public Production And Type Data 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

AIPL-USDA AIPL = “Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory” Charter To discover, test, and implement improved genetic evaluation techniques for economically important traits of dairy cattle and goats 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Yield Evaluation Yield evaluations released each July Figured using complex criteria Data is filtered to remove outlying points Factors considered: Management Group (herd, kidding month and kidding number) Genetic merit (breeding value) Permanent environment (disease, superior rearing) Herd-sire interaction (daughters in 1 herd, same sire, similar yield) Unexplained residual effects 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Yield Evaluation Terms PTA – Predicted Transmitting Ability PTA is the genetic merit the animal is expected to contribute to offspring and is ½ the breeding value. All breeds are analyzed together but PTA can only be compared within a breed. The yield genetic base by breed is recalculated every 5 years. REL – Reliability Measure of evaluation accuracy For bucks, more herds, higher reliability MFP$ - Milk-Fat-Protein Dollars Index for yield economic value $.031 (PTA milk) + $.80 (PTA fat) + $2.00 (PTA protein) PCTILE – Percentile Based on MFP$ Top 15% bucks and 5% does are designated elite 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Average Genetic Merit 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz Breed Milk Fat Protein Alpine .0 Experimental -114 -.7 -1.3 LaMancha -334 -4.8 -5.4 Nubian -531 4.4 -1.9 Oberhasli -476 -15.7 -14.3 Saanen 60 8 1.9 Toggenburg -18 -6.4 -3.5 Breed differences in average estimated breeding value based on 1990 data from AIPL. This value is subtracted from the actual calculated breed value to arrive at the PTA. 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Type Evaluation Linear Appraisal data for final score (50-99) and 13 linear traits (1-50) comes from ADGA Values are adjusted for age at appraisal and all evaluations are used Multi-trait animal model is used Correlations between traits is considered using heritability factors Data is analyzed across breeds and are not adjusted, so comparison can be made. 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Evaluation Indexes PTI (Production Type Index) Relative breeding value based on both yield and type Combines yield (FCM) and type (PTA) with breed factors Production over Type (2:1) Type over Production (1:2) Higher PTI = Higher breeding value ETA (Estimated Transmitting Ability) Based on the PTIs of parents Must have at least the sire PTI and dam or dam’s sire PTI 2 weightings – ETA 2:1 and ETA 1:2 Comparisons only within a breed Higher ETA = Higher potential breeding value 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Buck Data General Buck data is based only on daughter evaluations Since a buck has the most significant effect on the total herd improvement, concentrate on the boys! 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Buck Yield Data Lots of fields to pick from (PTA, PTA% and others) All can be subset by breed Options: Sort – Return the top 50 bucks for a given field sorted in descending order. Name Search – Find bucks with names either starting with or containing a string Pctile or Rel Search – Subset data for a range of values Uses: Bucks offering the most improvement in milk, fat or protein Compare bucks from the same herd Find bucks with the most consistency Find bucks with the most dairy value Find the most widely used bucks View details of a specific buck 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Buck Type Data Lots of fields to pick from All can be subset by breed Options: Sort – Return bucks for a given field sorted in descending Rel order. Name Search – Find bucks with names either starting with or containing a string Trait Ideal Range – Find bucks with trait values in the ADGA defined trait ideal range Trait UD Range – Same a #4 but you can define the range Trait Ordered By PTA – Subset data by individual trait values Uses: Find the mostly widely used bucks Find bucks offering the most improvement for a specific trait Find bucks with a trait value in a specific range View details of a specific buck 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Doe Data Does are identified in public data only by registration number prior to 1990 Does names in my database have been user entered or otherwise loaded Only doe details can be viewed 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Future Plans Convert site to new web technology Planned breeding ETA calculator and pedigree viewer Best buck for a doe Any other ideas you can come up with… Keep out of trouble 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Resources Missdee’s Alpines Website AIPL Home Page http://tools.missdees.com AIPL Home Page http://aipl.arsusda.gov/index.htm AIPL Goat Evaluation Description http://aipl.arsusda.gov/reference/goat/goatsfs.html ADGA Sire Development Document http://adga.org/SD/SireDevelopment.htm 9/4/2019 Gene Dershewitz

Questions What’s on your mind???

Demo