# Presentation: 425541

## Alternatives for evaluating daughter performance of progeny-test bulls between official evaluations	Abstr. #10

## Background

- All artificial insemination (AI) organizations want genetic information quickly to manage their semen production operations effectively
- Most don’t want official information too frequently as they’re pressured to update sales material when new official information is provided

## Background cont.)

- Receiving timely genetic information allows use of superior bulls earlier, thus increasing genetic improvement
- Each week of earlier delivery of sires’ Predicted Transmitting Abilities for milk is worth about $5 million annually as a result of better genetics

## Background (cont.)

- USDA changed from quarterly to triannual genetic evaluations in August 2007 to coincide with Interbull schedule
- Industry cooperators had requested unofficial interim evaluations for progeny-test (PT) bulls to offset delay in receiving information

## Objectives

- Investigate value of interim evaluations for PT bulls based on recent first-parity records of daughters and their contemporaries in cooperator herds
- Determine if interim evaluations provide information accurate enough for semen collection and storage (banking) for bulls of potentially superior genetic merit
- Secondarily assess value of interim evaluations for older bulls currently being marketed

## Data

- 4 data subsets based on recent calvings in cooperator herds
- Most recent 12 mo for herds with ≥5 PT daughter
- Most recent 18 mo for herds with ≥5 PT daughter
- Most recent 12 mo for herds with ≥1 PT daughters
- Most recent 18 mo for herds with ≥1 PT daughters

## Methods

- Compute interim evaluations for PT bulls and sires of contemporaries (non-PT) using current USDA animal model system and 4 data subsets
- Calculate correlations of interim evaluations with May 2006, August 2006, and August 2007 official evaluations for bulls with ≥10 daughters for the interim evaluation and an increase in reliability

## Bulls with increased reliability*

| Bull 
AI
status | Calving period included | No. of PT
daughters
in herd | No.
of
bulls | Mean daughters
per bull (no.) |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | May 2006
official | August 2006 |  |
|  |  |  |  |  | Interim | Official |
| PT | 12 mo | 5 | 695 | 18 | 39 | 46 |
|  |  | 1 | 795 | 21 | 46 | 47 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 743 | 21 | 41 | 48 |
|  |  | 1 | 885 | 25 | 49 | 50 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| *May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bulls with increased reliability*

| Bull 
AI
status | Calving period included | No. of PT
daughters
in herd | No.
of
bulls | Mean daughters
per bull (no.) |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | May 2006
official | August 2006 |  |
|  |  |  |  |  | Interim | Official |
| PT | 12 mo | 5 | 695 | 18 | 39 | 46 |
|  |  | 1 | 795 | 21 | 46 | 47 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 743 | 21 | 41 | 48 |
|  |  | 1 | 885 | 25 | 49 | 50 |
| Non-PT | 12 mo | 5 | 150 | 47 | 58 | 72 |
|  |  | 1 | 318 | 60 | 76 | 89 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 190 | 50 | 60 | 74 |
|  |  | 1 | 413 | 65 | 81 | 93 |
| *May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Correlations between evaluations*

| Bull 
AI
status | Calving period included | No. of PT
daughters
in herd | May 2006 official,
Aug. 2006 interim | Aug. 2006 interim,
Aug. 2006
 official | May 2006
official,
Aug. 2006 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PT | 12 mo | 5 | 0.78 | 0.95 | 0.86 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.83 | 0.98 | 0.88 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.87 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.90 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| *Bulls with increased reliability from May 2006 official to
  Aug.2006 interim evaluation |  |  |  |  |  |

## Correlations between evaluations*

| Bull 
AI
status | Calving period included | No. of PT
daughters
in herd | May 2006 official,
Aug. 2006 interim | Aug. 2006 interim,
Aug. 2006
 official | May 2006
official,
Aug. 2006 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PT | 12 mo | 5 | 0.78 | 0.95 | 0.86 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.83 | 0.98 | 0.88 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.87 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.90 |
| Non-PT | 12 mo | 5 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.93 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.94 |
|  | 18 mo | 5 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.94 |
|  |  | 1 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
| *Bulls with increased reliability from May 2006 official to
  Aug.2006 interim evaluation |  |  |  |  |  |

## Evaluation reliabilities (%)*

| Bull 
AI
status | Change in 
evaluation
reliability** | May 2006 official | Aug. 2006 interim | 
Aug. 2006 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PT | All | 65 | 72 | 75 |
|  | Increase | 59 | 73 | 73 |
|  | Decrease | 79 | 71 | 80 |
| Non-PT | All | 89 | 82 | 90 |
|  | Increase | 77 | 81 | 83 |
|  | Decrease | 90 | 82 | 91 |
| *Based on most recent 18 mo of calvings in herds with
  1 PT daughter
**Change from May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation;
    decrease includes no change |  |  |  |  |

## Correlations between evaluations*

| Bull 
AI
status | Change in evaluation reliability** | No. of
bulls | May 2006 official,
Aug. 2006 interim | Aug. 2006 interim,
Aug. 2006
 official | May 2006
official,
Aug. 2006 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PT | All | 1,274 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.93 |
|  | Increase | 885 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.90 |
|  | Decrease | 389 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| *Based on most recent 18 mo of calvings in herds with
  1 PT daughter
**Change from May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation;
    decrease includes no change |  |  |  |  |  |

## Correlations between evaluations*

| Bull 
AI
status | Change in evaluation reliability** | No. of
bulls | May 2006 official,
Aug. 2006 interim | Aug. 2006 interim,
Aug. 2006
 official | May 2006
official,
Aug. 2006 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| PT | All | 1,274 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.93 |
|  | Increase | 885 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.90 |
|  | Decrease | 389 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| Non-PT | All | 2,938 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.99 |
|  | Increase | 413 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
|  | Decrease | 2,525 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.99 |
| *Based on most recent 18 mo of calvings in herds with
  1 PT daughter
**Change from May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation;
    decrease includes no change |  |  |  |  |  |

## Correlations with 2007 evaluation*

|  | Aug.
2006
interim | Aug.
2006
 official | Aug.
2007 official |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| May 2006 official | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.81 |
| Aug. 2006 interim |  | 0.98 | 0.89 |
| Aug. 2006 official |  |  | 0.90 |
| *Based on most recent 18 mo of calvings in herds with
  1 PT daughter for PT bulls with increased reliability
  from May 2006 official to Aug. 2006 interim evaluation |  |  |  |

## Conclusions

- High correlations (0.95 to 0.98) between interim and official evaluations for PT bulls
- Highest correlation when data were from most recent 18 mo of calvings from herds with ≥1 PT daughter
- Higher reliability for interim evaluation than previous official evaluation for almost all PT bulls
- Lower reliability for almost all non-PT bulls

## Impact

- Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding and dairy records processing centers support June, September, and November interim evaluations with release limited to PT bulls with ≥10 daughters and an increase in reliability since the most recent official evaluation

## Applications

- Interim evaluations will provide valuable information for PT bulls between official evaluations
- Savings of ~$11 million/yr by eliminating delay in delivery of genetic information to US dairy producers