2004 R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

1 Relative GDP per capita 2000 PPPs, OECD = countries. Estimates for Source: OECD National Accounts.

Advertisements

Genomic imputation and evaluation using 1074 high density Holstein genotypes P. M. VanRaden 1, D. J. Null 1 *, G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, E.E.

2002 Paul M. VanRaden and Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.

2006 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

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

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

2012 ADSA-AMPA-ASAS-CSAS-WSASAS joint annual meeting (1)Norman Comparison of daughter performance of New Zealand and North American sires in US herds H.D.

2003 Clone risk assessment workshop (HDN-1) Performance of dairy cattle clones and evaluation of their milk composition H. Duane Norman*,1 and Marie K.

2002 Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Selection of dairy.

2004 R.L. Powell,* A.H. Sanders, and H.D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

2002 7WCGALP (HDN-1) Performance of Holstein clones in the United States H.D. NORMAN,*,1 T.J. LAWLOR, 2 and J.R. WRIGHT 1 1 Animal Improvement Programs.

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.

2007 J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. O'Connell 3, C. P. Van Tassell 1,2, T. S. Sonstegard 2, R. D. Schnabel 4, J. F. Taylor 4, and G. R. Wiggans.

2001 Interbull, August 2001 (1) Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluations Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2011 Avoiding bias from genomic pre- selection in converting.

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

G. R. Wiggans*, L. L. M. Thornton*,1, R. R. Neitzel †, and N. Gengler ‡ * Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD †

2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.

Interbull Technical Workshop, March 2-3 (1) Rex L. Powell and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,

Performance of Holsteins that originated from embryo transfer or twin births H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright* and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,

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

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Fertility Trait.

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.

Paul VanRaden USDA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Choice of Scales for Delivery of Genetic Evaluations.

Cooper, 2014CDCB Meeting Aug. 5(1) T.A. Cooper, G.R. Wiggans and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Genetic Base and Trait Definition Update.

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.

2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

Genetic interactions for heat stress and herd yield level: predicting foreign genetic merit from domestic data J. R. Wright*, P. M. VanRaden Animal Genomics.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA Pete Sullivan Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON, Canada

Paul VanRaden, 1 Katie Olson, 2 Dan Null, 1 Mehdi Sargolzaei, 3 Marco Winters, 4 and Jan-Thijs van Kaam 5 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, ARS,

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

ADSA/ASAS/CSAS meeting (1) 2005 A Salute to Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service US Department of Agriculture.

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.

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

Dr. George R. Wiggans, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA

Norman, 2014ICAR / Interbull annual meeting, Berlin, Germany, May 20, 2014 (1) Dr. H. Duane Norman Interim Administrator Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding.

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

Adjustment of breeding values for past and future inbreeding Paul VanRaden*, Lori Smith Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,

2002 Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Longevity and Fertility.

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.

Ashley H. Sanders and H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

2003 Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Comparison of Longevity.

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.

Interbull meeting (1) Paul M. VanRaden and Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Predicting Genetic.

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

ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) 2001 A Global Scale for Ranking Dairy Bulls Using Blended National Rankings Rex L. Powell * Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement.

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 2008 New.

 The United States provided the most foreign sires of sons every year, as high as 86%.  Canada was second in most years.  Combined, North American contributed.

2002 Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA Inbreeding Adjustments and Effect on Genetic Trend.

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.

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

Measures of Fertility: Heritabilities and Genetic Correlations

Normality and Skewness of Genetic Evaluations

Stillbirth, Longevity and Fertility Update

3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada

Presentation transcript:

2004 R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Country bias in international dairy bull evaluations

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (2)R. L. Powell MACE Evaluation Process  Interbull combines yield evaluations from 27 national Holstein bull populations.  Estimated genetic correlations between evaluations from different populations are applied.  Results are reported on the scale of each participating country organization.

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (3)R. L. Powell Investigation of Country Bias  Full brothers are expected to have the same genetics on average.  Full brothers with daughters in different countries should have the same MACE evaluations (on average).  Do full brother evaluations reveal country bias?

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (4)R. L. Powell Data  May 2005 Interbull evaluations of Holsteins for milk, fat, and protein yields, and SCS  Eligible bulls  ≥1 eligible full-brother  Daughters in only one eligible country  Eligible countries  Represented in ≥25 multi-country families  18 countries for yield  15 countries for SCS

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (5)R. L. Powell Data BullsFamilies YieldAll families24,65210,191 Multi-country families SCSAll families22, Multi-country families

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (6)R. L. Powell Multi-Country Families Home Country Families Home Country Families YieldSCSYieldSCS Australia8554Italy Canada641628Japan Czech Rep.121  New Zealand4439 Denmark505485Poland70  France South Africa3230 Germany939845Spain Gr. Britain468432Sweden4844 Hungary6754The Netherlands Ireland159  United States

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (7)R. L. Powell Ties Between Countries Home Country Ties Home Country Ties YieldSCSYieldSCS Australia12278Italy Canada773751Japan Czech Rep.153  New Zealand5548 Denmark646595Poland81  France South Africa4842 Germany Spain Gr. Britain650582Sweden5449 Hungary8266The Netherlands Ireland232  United States

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (8)R. L. Powell US Ties to Other Countries Home Country Ties Home Country Ties YieldSCSYieldSCS Australia3220Italy51 Canada337333Japan Czech Rep.11  New Zealand15 Denmark5651Poland6  France476473South Africa88 Germany140 Spain5857 Gr. Britain109104Sweden  Hungary1815The Netherlands Ireland16  United States

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (9)R. L. Powell Model  Full-brother family (absorbed)  Country of bull daughters  Analysis of MACE evaluations on the US scale  Difference between evaluations based on foreign daughters and those based on domestic (US) daughters  Evaluations on several other country scales also analyzed

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (10)R. L. Powell Results  Overall significance for country differences on all country scales for yield traits  Overall, no significance for SCS  For SCS, South African bulls significantly disadvantaged on all scales

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (11)R. L. Powell Results for US-Scale Evaluations Countries with evaluations more favorable (blue) or less favorable (pink) than those from USA (P<0.05) MilkFatProteinSCS AUS ESP GBR JPN DEU FRA ITA AUS ZAF GBRAUS GBR ZAF DEU JPN ZAF AUS=Australia; DEU=Germany; ESP=Spain; FRA=France; GBR=United Kingdom; ITA=Italy; JPN=Japan; USA=United States of America; ZAF=South African Republic;.

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (12)R. L. Powell Results for Other Evaluation Scales Milk:Domestic bulls disadvantaged on scales of CAN, ITA, and NLD similarly to US bulls on the US scale Domestic bulls generally favored on scales of AUS and DEU

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (13)R. L. Powell Results for Other Evaluation Scales Milk:Domestic bulls disadvantaged on scales of CAN, ITA, and NLD similarly to US bulls on the US scale Domestic bulls generally favored on scales of AUS and DEU Fat:Bulls from AUS, GBR, and ZAF were favored on scales of CAN, FRA, ITA, and NLD All but NZL and ZAF bulls disadvantaged on AUS scale

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (14)R. L. Powell Results for Other Evaluation Scales Milk:Domestic bulls disadvantaged on scales of CAN, ITA, and NLD similarly to US bulls on the US scale Domestic bulls generally favored on scales of AUS and DEU Fat:Bulls from AUS, GBR, and ZAF were favored on scales of CAN, FRA, ITA, and NLD All but NZL and ZAF bulls disadvantaged on AUS scale Protein results similar to milk

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (15)R. L. Powell Possible Complications  Genetic correlations  Parent averages (completeness and phantom grouping)  National animal model vs. sire-MGS MACE  Preferential treatment  Pre-selection (markers, etc.)

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (16)R. L. Powell Conclusions  Apparent biases for yields but not SCS  Some countries appear disadvantaged while others are favored across all country scales  Caused by shortcomings in national systems or international system?  Source of biases unknown and may be different for different country pairs