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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Relationship of somatic cell score with fertility measures Poster 1390 ADSA 2001, Indiannapolis R. H. Miller 1, J. S. Clay 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal.
Advertisements

2002 Paul M. VanRaden and Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
Impact of selection for increased daughter fertility on productive life and culling for reproduction H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright*, R. H. Miller Animal Improvement.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2008 Genetic trends.
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.
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
WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
December 2014 Proof Changes
2001 ADSA annual meeting, July 2001 (1) Timeliness of progeny-testing through AI and percentage of bulls returned to service (abstract 1020) H.D. NORMAN,*
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.
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.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.
Genetic Evaluation and Index Changes. HA-USA Fertility Index Fertility Index =.64 x PTA Daughter Pregnancy Rate (DPR).18 x PTA Cow Conception Rate (CCR).18.
 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.
2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT 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,
John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement 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.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA San Antonio.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Missouri Dairy Summit.
Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Genetic Base and Trait Definition Update.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansInner.
John B. Cole, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA The U.S. genetic.
2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Overview.
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.
2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,
2003 Melvin Tooker, Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2006.
Effect of temperature and humidity on gestation length H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.
2003 P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluations.
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.
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.
H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright, and R.H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA
WiggansARS Big Data Computing Workshop (1) 2013 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA 2009 meeting.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA EAAP.
2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
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.
ADSA 2002 (RHM-P1) 2002 R.H. Miller, ,1 H.D. Norman, 1 and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.
2003 P.M. VanRaden* and M.E. Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Definition.
H.D. Norman* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and M.T. Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2004 P.M. VanRaden, M.E. Tooker*, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
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.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Dairy Cattle Reproductive.
2001 NAAB / S-284 Meeting, Baltimore, 2001 (1) Implications of Crossbreeding on Dairy Cattle Improvement Paul VanRaden and Ashley Sanders Animal Improvement.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2007 Genetic evaluation.
CRI – Spanish update (1) 2010 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.
2001 ASAS/ADSA 2001 Conference (1) Simultaneous accounting for heterogeneity of (co)variance components in genetic evaluation of type traits N. Gengler.
2006 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (1) Trait Selection When Culling U.S. Holsteins H.D. Norman, J.L. Hutchison, J.R. Wright,
H.D. NORMAN,* R.L. POWELL, J.R. WRIGHT
Cross-Breeding What is X-Breeding?.
A National Sire Fertility Index
Domestic vs. imported AI semen for Holstein graziers in the US
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.
Presentation transcript:

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

What genetic programs work well for U.S. graziers? 2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (2)

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (3) 2006 Grazier breeding l Objective – Cattle with better fertility or other desired characteristics l Approaches (occasional use) – Bulls from countries that practice grazing – Bull breed different from cow breed to capitalize on heterosis – Effectiveness in grazing herds?

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (4) 2006 Phenotypic trend in days open Lactation

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (5) 2006 Comparison study l Daughter performance within herd – New Zealand AI Holstein/Friesian bulls – Other AI Holstein bulls (predominantly U.S.) l Cows included – Records in AIPL national database – Calved (1 st parity) before May 2005 – Time to express the performance traits

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (6) 2006 Traits examined – Milk, fat, protein – Somatic cell score – Days open – Conformation traits

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (7) 2006 Yield and SCS data l First-lactation daughters (159 herds) – 552 sired by 26 New Zealand bulls – 6266 sired by 1119 U.S. bulls l Second-lactation daughters (136 herds) – 394 sired by 19 New Zealand bulls – 5212 sired by 1464 U.S. bulls l Third-lactation daughters (90 herds) – 213 sired by 14 New Zealand bulls – 3170 sired by 1036 U.S. bulls

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (8) 2006 Yield results l Milk U.S. daughter superiority – First lactation1060 lb*** – Second lactation1261 lb*** – Third lactation1056 lb*** l FatNew Zealand daughter advantage – First lactation2 lb – Second lactation 2 lb – Third lactation7 lb l ProteinU.S. daughter superiority/advantage – First lactation 11 lb** – Second lactation 15 lb*** – Third lactation 11 lb

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (9) 2006 Economic value l Current U.S. milk prices l MFP$ =  milk  fat  protein l U.S. daughter MFP$ advantage – First lactation$35.41 – Second lactation$46.43 – Third lactation$27.85

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (10) 2006 SCS results l First lactation U.S. daughter superiority of 0.22*** l Second lactation U.S. daughter advantage of 0.10 l Third lactation U.S. daughter advantage of 0.06

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (11) 2006 Days open data l First-lactation daughters (148 herds) – 513 sired by 25 New Zealand bulls – 5823 sired by 1078 U.S. bulls l Second-lactation daughters (122 herds) – 357 sired by 19 New Zealand bulls – 4663 sired by 1338 U.S. bulls l Third-lactation daughters (79 herds) – 183 sired by 14 New Zealand bulls – 2767 sired by 931 U.S. bulls

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (12) 2006 Days open results l First lactation New Zealand daughter superiority of 7 days* l Second lactation New Zealand daughter superiority of 8 days* l Third lactation New Zealand daughter advantage of 2 days

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (13) 2006 Type data l First-lactation daughters – 79 sired by New Zealand bulls – 308 sired by U.S. bulls

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (14) 2006 Type results l Final score U.S. daughters higher by 1.6 points* l Stature U.S. daughters taller, by 2.3 points* l Rear udder height U.S. daughter superior by 2.6 points* l Udder depth U.S. daughter superior by 3.2 points**

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (15) 2006 Yield results from spring calvers l Milk U.S. daughter superiority – First lactation 774 lb*** – Second lactation1186 lb*** – Third lactation1642 lb*** l FatNew Zealand daughter advantage – First lactation 7 lb – Second lactation 4 lb – Third lactation13 lb l ProteinU.S. daughter superiority/advantage – First lactation 9 lb – Second lactation 18 lb* – Third lactation 29 lb**

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (16) 2006 SCS results for spring calvers l First lactation U.S. daughter superiority of 0.24* l Second lactation U.S. daughter advantage of 0.16 l Third lactation U.S. daughter advantage of 0.11

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (17) 2006 Days open for spring calvers l First lactation New Zealand daughter advantage of 6 days l Second lactation New Zealand daughter advantage of 1 days l Third lactation New Zealand daughter advantage of 1 days

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (18) 2006 Genetic alternative To achieve top fertility, consider direct selection for Daughter pregnancy rate (DPR) from US bulls or those from all sources

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (19) 2006 Definitions l Days open = days from calving to conception l Daughter pregnancy rate (DPR) = percentage of those open (non- pregnant) cows that are between 50 and 250 days in milk that become pregnant within 21 days

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (20) 2006 Days open and DPR by breed l Breed Avg. days open Avg DPR (%) – Ayrshire – Brown Swiss – Guernsey – Holstein – Jersey – Milking Shorthorn DPR = 0.25 (233 – days open)

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (21) 2006 High DPR vs. Active-AI Holsteins l Traits High DPR bulls All Active-AI – Milk (lbs) – Fat (lbs)14 32 – Protein (lbs)19 26 – SCS – Productive Life (mo) – DPR (%) – Net Merit Dollars # of bulls (DPR≥2.0)24 692

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (22) 2006 High DPR vs. All Active-AI Jerseys l Traits High DPR bulls All Active-AI – Milk (lbs) – Fat (lbs)46 40 – Protein (lbs)18 27 – SCS – Productive Life (mo) – DPR (%) – Net Merit Dollars # of bulls (DPR≥1.0)11 96

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (23) 2006 Higher DPR vs. High Active-AI HO l Traits Higher DPR bulls High All Active-AI – Milk (lbs) – Fat (lbs)28 44 – Protein (lbs)29 35 – SCS – Productive Life (mo) – DPR (%) – Net Merit Dollars # of bulls (DPR≥2.0)12 346

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (24) 2006 Conclusions l Strain differences between U.S. Holsteins and New Zealand Friesians for several traits l Higher milk and protein yields for U.S. bull daughters l Lower first-lactation SCS for U.S. bull daughters

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (25) 2006 Conclusions (continued) l Fewer first- and second-lactation days open for New Zealand bull daughters l Smaller body size for New Zealand bull daughters l Better udders for U.S. bull daughters

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (26) 2006 Caution l Strain differences influenced by individual bulls chosen from each country l Found the New Zealand bulls chosen were slightly more selective than the US bulls used

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (27) 2006 Recommendations to breeders l Don’t select bulls solely on one trait because many traits have economic value l Consider economic value of all performance traits in your own market when making genetic choices l For seasonal calving, use an index that puts more weight on daughter fertility than those recommended for the general industry

Thank you! 2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (28)