# Presentation: 096004

## Interbull as a Tool for Genetic Improvement

## INTERBULL

**INTERBULL**

**International Bull Evaluation Service**
**Centre in Uppsala, Sweden**
**Responsibilities and activities**
**Steering committee sets policy**
**General operations by staff**
**Global service provider**

## 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**

## Interbull Service Participants Brown Swiss

| Country | Trait Participation |  |  | Percentage of bulls |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Yield | Type | SCS |  |
| Germany/Austria |  |  |  | 51 |
| Switzerland |  |  |  | 24 |
| Italy |  |  |  | 12 |
| USA |  |  |  | 8 |
| Slovenia |  |  |  | 3 |
| Canada |  |  |  | 1 |
| France |  |  |  | 1 |
| The Netherlands |  |  |  | <1 |
| New Zealand |  |  |  | <1 |

## Numbers of Countries per Bull

**5401**

**237**

**80**

**32**

**13**

**15**

**3**

**5**

## Genetic Correlations with USA

| Country | Protein | Stature |
| --- | --- | --- |
| France | .95 | .97 |
| Canada | .94 | .94 |
| Italy | .91 | .96 |
| The Netherlands | .90 | .98 |
| Germany/Austria | .89 |  |
| Switzerland | .89 | .88 |
| Slovenia | .87 |  |
| New Zealand | .77 |  |

## Example Bull “Kiwi”

| Country | Daughters |  |  |  | Genetic Correlation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Number |  |  | Percentage |  |
| New Zealand | 144 |  |  | 75% | 0.77 |
| USA | 49 |  |  | 25% | 1.00 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interbull Breeding Value in the US |  | = | 26% New Zealand daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 57% USA daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 17% Pedigree |  |  |
| Source: Dr. Kent Weigel, University of Wisconsin  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Example Bull “Bratwurst”

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interbull Breeding Value in the US |  | = | 45% German daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 40% USA daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 15% Pedigree |  |  |
| Source: Dr. Kent Weigel, University of Wisconsin |  |  |  |  |  |

| Country | Daughters |  |  |  | Genetic Correlation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Number |  |  | Percentage |  |
| Germany | 94 |  |  | 72% | 0.89 |
| USA | 37 |  |  | 28% | 1.00 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Example Bull “Meatball”

| Country | Daughters |  |  |  | Genetic Correlation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Number |  |  | Percentage |  |
| Italy | 78 |  |  | 37% | 0.91 |
| New Zealand | 79 |  |  | 38% | 0.77 |
| USA | 51 |  |  | 25% | 1.00 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Interbull Breeding Value in the US |  | = | 34% Italian daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 12% New Zealand daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 42% USA daughters |  |  |
|  |  |  | 12% Pedigree |  |  |
| Source: Dr. Kent Weigel, University of Wisconsin |  |  |  |  |  |

## Top 50 Bulls for Yield (USA)Based on Interbull Evaluations

| Country |  | Milk | Protein | Fat |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Germany/Austria |  | 8 | 19 | 21 |
| USA |  | 19 | 16 | 17 |
| Italy |  | 14 | 11 | 7 |
| Switzerland |  | 9 | 3 | 5 |
| France |  | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Canada |  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| The Netherlands |  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| New Zealand |  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Slovenia |  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Top-50 Bulls with US Sires |  | 44 | 28 | 37 |
| Source: Interbull, May 2003 |  |  |  |  |

## 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**

## Effect of Minimum REL on Number of Bulls and Mean EBVP

| Minimum REL | Number of Bulls | Loss in
 EBVP1 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (all) 0 | 5786 | 0 |
| 60 | 5495 | 0 |
| 70 | 3688 | 1 |
| 75 | 1610 | 3 |
| 80 | 365 | 8 |
| 85 | 149 | 16 |
| 90 | 56 | 26 |
| 1For the top 50 US PTAP Bulls, May 2003   |  |  |
| Source: Interbull, May 2003 |  |  |

## Effect of Minimum PTA on Number of Bulls and Mean NM$

| Minimum PTA | Number of Bulls1 | Loss in
 NM$2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| None | 55 | 0 |
| PTA PL > 0 | 40 | 0 |
| PTA SCS < 3.08 | 36 | 17 |
| PTA Fat% > 0 | 34 | 0 |
| PTA Protein% > 0 | 27 | 81 |
| All of the above | 6 | 211 |
| 1Among US active AI bulls, May 2003   |  |  |
| 2Among the top 6 US NM$ bulls, May 2003   |  |  |
| Source: USDA, May 2003 |  |  |

## Study Objective

**Do foreign data (Interbull evaluations) aid in prediction of future national evaluations?**

## Sources of Added Data

## Assumptions

**Current national evaluation is what we want to predict**
**Part-whole correlations between national evaluations and between national and Interbull evaluations **

## Data Sources

**Interbull PTA that included foreign daughters from February 1999**
**Concurrent US-only (national) PTA**
**May 2003 national PTA **
**REL ******** 90%**
**Addition of ******** 50 daughters between national evaluations **
**All expressed on US scale, and current US base**

## Data Included

**Number of bulls: ****24 **
**% US daughters in Interbull evaluation**
**Average: ****28%**
**Median: ****22%**
**Range: ****1 – 97%**
**Average REL**
**Feb 1999 Interbull: ****94%**
**Feb 1999 national: ****89%**
**May 2003 national: ****97%**

## Correlations with February 2003 National PTA

|  | February 1999 PTA |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Trait | Interbull | National |
| Milk | .97 | .86 |
| Fat | .91 | .74 |
| Protein | .94 | .74 |

**Notes:**
For all 272 bulls, correlations between foreign only and US only PTA were high and very close to expectation, although fat is a bit lower. Correlation of US PTA with the earlier PA was higher than expected for mild and protein and lower for fat.

## Differences From February 2003 National PTA

|  | February 1999 PTA |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Interbull |  | National |
| Average Absolute Differences |  |  |  |
| Milk (lb) | 102.8 |  | 139.5 |
| Fat (lb) | 6.3 |  | 7.7 |
| Protein (lb) | 3.5 |  | 4.9 |
|  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |

|  | February 1999 PTA |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Interbull |  | National |
| Average Absolute Differences |  |  |  |
| Milk (lb) | 102.8 |  | 139.5 |
| Fat (lb) | 6.3 |  | 7.7 |
| Protein (lb) | 3.5 |  | 4.9 |
| SD of Differences |  |  |  |
| Milk (lb) | 114.9 |  | 232.6 |
| Fat (lb) | 7.8 |  | 12.5 |
| Protein (lb) | 2.7 |  | 7.9 |

**Notes:**
For all 272 bulls, correlations between foreign only and US only PTA were high and very close to expectation, although fat is a bit lower. Correlation of US PTA with the earlier PA was higher than expected for mild and protein and lower for fat.

## How to Use Interbull Evaluations

**All data on the same scale**
**Use reliability properly (*****how much***** to use a bull, *****not****** whether***** to use a bull)**
**Use appropriate indexes when possible**

## Conclusions

**Interbull provides a useful tool**
**Increases the bull pool**
**Improves accuracy**
**Beware of truncation selection**
**Array of evaluated traits is expanding**

## Websites

_**[www.](http://www.interbull.org/)**__**[interbull](http://www.interbull.org/)**__**[.org](http://www.interbull.org/)**_
**Publications & bulletins**
**Evaluation summaries**
_**[www.](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**__**[aipl](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**__**[.](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**__**[arsusda](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**__**[.](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**__**[gov](http://www.aipl.arsusda.gov/)**_
**Documents (including presentations)**
**Downloadable files – top bull lists**
**Public access to all evaluations on the US scale, national and Interbull**