# Presentation: 747703

## History of JerseyYoung-Sire Development Programs in the United States

**H. DUANE NORMAN**
**Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory**
**http://aipl.arsusda.gov**
**Agricultural Research Service, USDA**
**Beltsville, MD 20705-2350**
**dnorman@aipl.arsusda.gov**** ******** 301-504-8334**

## Why Attend?

**The future competitiveness of the breed will be determined primarily by the number and quality of young AI bull sampled. ...**** **

## Two Key Questions

**Should we be getting more bulls sampled?**
**Does there need to be any change in the quality of bulls sampled?**** **

## Successful progeny test (PT)

**Selection of bulls with high pedigree merit**
**Early semen collection**
**Rapid semen distribution and use in milk-recorded herds**
**Daughters with unique ID, recorded pedigrees, and kept until milking**

## PT accuracy and impact

**Accuracy of PT evaluations**
**Number of daughters**
**Daughter distribution across herds**
**Impact on genetic improvement**
**Number of bulls sampled**
**Intensity of culling of PT bulls**

## Data sources

**National USDA database**
**ID information from DHI and breed associations**
**Bull entry into PT programs and semen distribution dates from NAAB**

## PT definitions

**Bulls**
**U.S. AI organization**
**10–29 months old at semen release**
**NAAB controller code between 1 and 222**
**Daughters**
**Born 8–42 months after bull entered AI sampling**
**Usable 1st-lactation record**
**First 125 to calve in DHI herds**

## Records (1000’s) for sire evaluations

| 
Year | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey | Milking
Shorthorn |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970 | 13 | 14 | 57 | 588 | 51 | 2 |
| 1980 | 13 | 17 | 38 | 1,109 | 63 | 2 |
| 1990 | 12  | 19 | 26 | 1,761 |  104 | 3 |
| 2000 | 7 | 16 | 9 | 1,624 |  107 | 2 |
| 2002 | 7 | 16 | 8 | 1,590 |  115 | 3 |
| 2004 | 6 | 16 | 8 | 1,598 |  121 | 3 |

## PT bulls (no.) in major studs

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey | Jersey groups |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970 |   1 |   2 | 19 |   233 |   17 | ... |
| 1980 | 13  | 33 | 23 |   826 |   23 | ... |
| 1985 | 19 | 16 | 41 |   969 |   52 | ... |
| 1990 |   7 | 30 | 40 | 1,191 | 103 | 11 |
| 1995 | 15 | 31 | 26 | 1,373 | 134 | 13 |
| 2000 | 9 | 23 | 13 | 1,272 | 127 | 13 |
| 2005 | 5 | 25 | 15 | 1,169 | 133 | 16 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |  |

**PT bulls ****(no.)**** in major studs**

## Regional sire sampling groups

| 

Group | 

Year started | 

Members (no.) | 

Bulls sampled (no.) | Bulls returned
to active service (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Dairyland | 1987 | 84 | 32 |   8 |
| Dixieland | 1985 | 82 | 111 | 24 |
| Great Western | 1989 | 37 | 29 | 10 |
| Liberty | 1986 | 87 | 83 | 40 |
| New England | 1990 | 68 | 36 | 21 |
| Total |  | 358 | 291 | 25 |

## PT bulls (no.) sampled*

| Year | Holstein | Jersey | 

*Per 100,000
  usable records
  in genetic
  evaluations |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970 |   38 |   33 |  |
| 1980 |   74 |   36 |  |
| 1990 |   68 |   99 |  |
| 1995 |   78 | 127 |  |
| 2000 |   78 | 119 |  |
| 2002 |   71 | 126 |  |
| 2004 |   79 | 108 |  |

## Bull age (months) at semen distribution

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1975–79 | 19 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 17 |
| 1980–84 | 19 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 17 |
| 1985–89 | 19 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| 1990–94 | 19 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| 1995–99 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| 2000–04 | 20 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 17 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bull age (months) at daughter birth

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 39 | 42 | 38 | 33 | 38 |
| 1975–79 | 39 | 40 | 37 | 32 | 38 |
| 1980–84 | 39 | 40 | 35 | 32 | 35 |
| 1985–89 | 39 | 38 | 35 | 30 | 33 |
| 1990–94 | 36 | 36 | 34 | 29 | 33 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | 29 | 32 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bull age (months) at daughter calving

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 68 | 70 | 66 | 61 | 65 |
| 1975–79 | 69 | 68 | 65 | 60 | 64 |
| 1980–84 | 68 | 68 | 63 | 60 | 62 |
| 1985–89 | 68 | 66 | 62 | 57 | 59 |
| 1990–94 | 65 | 64 | 62 | 56 | 58 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | 55 | 56 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## PT daughter age (months) at calving

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 27 |
| 1975–79 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 28 | 26 |
| 1980–84 | 29 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 26 |
| 1985–89 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 26 |
| 1990–94 | 28 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 26 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | 26 | 25 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## PT daughters (no.)

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1960–64 | 57 | 51 | 48 | 67 | 56 |
| 1970–74 | 72 | 71 | 53 | 47 | 48 |
| 1980–84 | 61 | 30 | 52 | 48 | 64 |
| 1985–89 | 44 | 43 | 40 | 55 | 60 |
| 1990–94 | 44 | 28 | 31 | 60 | 49 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | 73 | 57 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## PT herds (no.)

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1960–64 | 57 | 51 | 48 | 49 | 29 |
| 1970–74 | 72 | 71 | 53 | 33 | 25 |
| 1980–84 | 61 | 30 | 52 | 33 | 37 |
| 1985–89 | 44 | 43 | 40 | 40 | 37 |
| 1990–94 | 44 | 28 | 31 | 44 | 31 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | 52 | 35 |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## PT bulls (%) returned to AI service

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1963–67 | 71 | 48 | 36 | 44 | 46 |
| 1968–72 | 57 | 88 | 44 | 45 | 50 |
| 1973–77 | 67 | 62 | 32 | 39 | 56 |
| 1978–82 | 46 | 51 | 36 | 20 | 38 |
| 1983–87 | 37 | 46 | 28 | 19 | 26 |
| 1988–92 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 14 | 19 |
| 1993–97 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Jersey registry types* (no.)

| Year | J1 | OA | PR | GR | HR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1998 | 245 | 6,402 | 2,399 | 1,990 | 47,287 |
| 2000 | 574 | 7,196 | 3,850 | 2,233 | 49,237 |
| 2002 | 909 | 5,017 | 4,761 | 2,518 | 50,484 |
| 2004 | 774 | 2,994 | 3,693 | 2,799 | 49,572 |
| 2005 | 625 | 2,311 | 3,161 | 2,600 | 40,346 |

| * J1 | = | Jersey-sired crossbred cows |
| --- | --- | --- |
| OA | = | 1st-generation grade-up cows |
| PR | = | 2nd-generation grade-up cows |
| GR | = | 3rd-generation grade-up cows |
| HR | = | Fully registered bulls and cows |

## In a 1984 Jersey Journal:

**The higher the percentage that Jersey dairyman breed to young bulls (even if this percentage is as high as 90%), the greater the genetic improvement you will make as a breed.**

## Why?

**If you breed 90% to young bulls, the proven bulls will not be used widely, i.e. they’re primarily used to sire the next generation of young bulls entering AI.**

## Clarification of Hypothetical:

**Question: Why does genetic progress continue to increase as percentage bred to young bulls increases to 90%.**
**Answer: Because you can sample more young bulls. You sample 6X as many bulls with 90% PT use as you can with 15% PT use.**

## Relative improvement

| 

PT bulls
Tested
per yr. | 

% returned to AI | 

Selection intensity | 
Gain vs. that for 200 PT bulls | 
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  10 | 100 | 0.0 |   0 |  |
|  25 |  40 | .8 |  43 |  |
|  75 |  13 | 1.5 |  77 |  |
| 150 |   7 | 1.8 |  94 |  |
| 200 |   5 | 2.0 | 100 |  |
| 250 |   4 | 2.1 | 105 |  |

## Conclusions

**Little change in age of PT bull at semen release**
**Decrease in age of PT bulls at daughter birth ****(4.5 mo for Holsteins and Jerseys)**
**Taking longer than Holsteins by 2 months to get semen used. ****HELP here****!**

## Conclusions

**Decrease in age of PT bulls at daughter calving ****(5 to 6 mo) OK here**
**Number of PT daughters up some. Better to increase a little yet. ****HELP here!**

## Conclusions

**More education on expectation from young PT bulls. Most people underestimate the value of high pedigree indexed young bulls. ****HELP here!**

## Conclusions  (continued)

**1 in 5 PT Jerseys returned to active service compared with 1 in 7 Holsteins, but not 1 in 10 as often floated**

**Thank you!**

## Bull age SD (months) at semen distribution

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1975–79 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 3.2 |
| 1980–84 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| 1985–89 | 4.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
| 1990–94 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
| 1995–99 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| 2000–04 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bull age SD (months) at daughter birth

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 6.4 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 5.7 | 4.6 |
| 1975–79 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 5.1 | 4.9 |
| 1980–84 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 5.2 | 4.4 |
| 1985–89 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| 1990–94 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 3.9 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bull age SD (months) at daughter calving

| 
Year* | 
Ayrshire | Brown
Swiss | 
Guernsey | 
Holstein | 
Jersey |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 |
| 1975–79 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 5.3 | 5.1 |
| 1980–84 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.4 | 4.4 |
| 1985–89 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 3.7 |
| 1990–94 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 4.1 |
| 1995–99 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 
*Year of bull entry into AI sampling |  |  |  |  |  |

## Herd distribution (%) by herd PT use

|  | Herd PT use |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Year* | 0% | 1–19% | 20–49% | 50–99% | 100% |
| 1965 | 85 | 11 | 4 | 1 | <.1 |
| 1975 | 68 | 22 | 9 | 1 | <.1 |
| 1985 | 56 | 32 | 11 | 1 | .1 |
| 1990 | 51 | 35 | 12 | 2 | .1 |
| 1995 | 41 | 39 | 16 | 3 | .3 |
| 1998 | 39 | 38 | 18 | 5 | .4 |
| *Year of first calving |  |  |  |  |  |

## PT cows (%) by herd PT use

|  | Herd PT use |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Year* | <10% | 10–19% | 20–49% | 50–99% | 100% |
| 1965 | 18 | 32 | 38 | 11 | .1 |
| 1975 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 6 | .1 |
| 1985 | 20 | 33 | 40 | 7 | .3 |
| 1990 | 18 | 32 | 38 | 12 | .6 |
| 1995 | 14 | 27 | 42 | 15 | 1.0 |
| 1998 | 11 | 24 | 41 | 23 | 1.1 |
| *Year of first calving |  |  |  |  |  |

## Bull age (months) at semen distribution

| 
Year* | 
Jersey | Jersey
groups | 

*Year of bull
  entry into AI
  sampling
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1975–79 | 17 | ... |  |
| 1980–84 | 17 | ... |  |
| 1985–89 | 16 | 16 |  |
| 1990–94 | 16 | 17 |  |
| 1995–99 | 16 | 16 |  |
| 2000–04 | 17 | ... |  |

## Bull age (months) at daughter birth

| 
Year* | 
Jersey | Jersey
groups | 

*Year of bull
  entry into AI
  sampling
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 38 | ... |  |
| 1975–79 | 38 | ... |  |
| 1980–84 | 35 | ... |  |
| 1985–89 | 33 | 32 |  |
| 1990–94 | 33 | 32 |  |
| 1995–99 | 32 | 32 |  |

## PT daughter age (months) at calving

| 
Year* | 
Jersey | Jersey
groups | 

*Year of bull
  entry into AI
  sampling
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1970–74 | 27 | 29 |  |
| 1975–79 | 26 | 28 |  |
| 1980–84 | 26 | 29 |  |
| 1985–89 | 26 | 26 |  |
| 1990–94 | 26 | 25 |  |
| 1995–99 | 25 | 25 |  |

## PT daughters (no.)

| 
Year* | 
Jersey | Jersey
groups | 

*Year of bull
  entry into AI
  sampling
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1960–64 | 56 | ... |  |
| 1970–74 | 48 | ... |  |
| 1980–84 | 64 | ... |  |
| 1985–89 | 60 | 44 |  |
| 1990–94 | 49 | 35 |  |
| 1995–99 | 57 | 35 |  |

## PT herds (no.)

| 
Year* | 
Jersey | Jersey
groups | 

*Year of bull
  entry into AI
  sampling
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1960–64 | 29 | ... |  |
| 1970–74 | 25 | ... |  |
| 1980–84 | 37 | ... |  |
| 1985–89 | 37 | 27 |  |
| 1990–94 | 31 | 23 |  |
| 1995–99 | 35 | 24 |  |

## Objectives

**Summarize characteristics of PT programs related to effectiveness and timeliness**
**Examine distribution of PT daughters**
**Determine selection intensity after evaluation of PT bulls**