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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. Data
Focused on Holstein PT bulls from August Extracted all the first-parity milk yield records of their daughters and their daughters’ contemporaries
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

7. 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 official evaluations for bulls with ≥10 daughters for the interim evaluation and an increase in reliability

8. Bulls with increased reliability*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 47
18 mo
743 41 48
885 25 49 50
*May 2006 official to Aug interim evaluation

9. Bulls with increased reliability*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 47
18 mo
743 41 48
885 25 49 50
Non-PT
150 58 72
318 60 76 89
190 74
413 65 81 93
*May 2006 official to Aug interim evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

15. Correlations with 2007 evaluation*
Aug.
2006
interim
official
2007 official
May 2006 official
0.85
0.90
0.81
Aug interim
0.98
0.89
Aug official
*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 interim evaluation

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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