2004 R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD [email protected]

2004

2004

2004

R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. NormanAnimal Improvement Programs LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, [email protected]

Country bias in international dairy bull

evaluations

ADSA-ASAS-CSAS JOINT MEETING 2005 (2) R. L. Powell200

4200

5

MACE Evaluation Process

Interbull combines yield evaluations from 27 national Holstein bull populations.

Estimated genetic correlations between evaluations from different populations are applied.

Results are reported on the scale of each participating country organization.


4200

5

Investigation of Country Bias

Full brothers are expected to have the same genetics on average.

Full brothers with daughters in different countries should have the same MACE evaluations (on average).

Do full brother evaluations reveal country bias?


4200

5

Data

May 2005 Interbull evaluations of Holsteins for milk, fat, and protein yields, and SCS

Eligible bulls ≥1 eligible full-brother Daughters in only one eligible country

Eligible countries Represented in ≥25 multi-country families 18 countries for yield 15 countries for SCS


4200

5

Data

Bulls Families

Yield All families 24,652 10,191

Multi-country families

9916 3598

SCS All families 22,842 9022

Multi-country families

9489 3283


4200

5

Multi-Country Families

Home Country

Families

Home Country

Families

Yield SCS Yield SCSAustralia 85 54 Italy 237 223Canada 641 628 Japan 763 754Czech Rep. 121 New Zealand 44 39Denmark 505 485 Poland 70

France 1162108

9 South Africa 32 30Germany 939 845 Spain 215 207Gr. Britain 468 432 Sweden 48 44

Hungary 67 54The Netherlands 637 599

Ireland 159 United States 1631159

6


4200

5

Ties Between Countries

Home Country

Ties

Home Country

Ties

Yield SCS Yield SCSAustralia 122 78 Italy 328 302Canada 773 751 Japan 979 959Czech Rep. 153 New Zealand 55 48Denmark 646 595 Poland 81

France 1481136

4 South Africa 48 42

Germany 1176103

6 Spain 302 280Gr. Britain 650 582 Sweden 54 49



0


4200

5

US Ties to Other Countries

Home Country

Ties

Home Country

Ties

Yield SCS Yield SCSAustralia 32 20 Italy 51 51Canada 337 333 Japan 491 490Czech Rep. 11 New Zealand 15 15Denmark 56 51 Poland 6 France 476 473 South Africa 8 8Germany 140 140 Spain 58 57Gr. Britain 109 104 Sweden



0


4200

5

Model

Full-brother family (absorbed)

Country of bull daughters

Analysis of MACE evaluations on the US scale

Difference between evaluations based on foreign daughters and those based on domestic (US) daughters

Evaluations on several other country scales also analyzed


4200

5

Results

Overall significance for country differences on all country scales for yield traits

Overall, no significance for SCS

For SCS, South African bulls significantly disadvantaged on all scales


4200

5

Results for US-Scale Evaluations

Countries with evaluations more favorable (blue) or less favorable (pink) than those from USA (P<0.05)

Milk Fat Protein SCS

AUS ESP GBR JPN

DEU FRA ITA

AUS ZAF

GBR AUS GBR ZAF

DEU JPN

ZAF

AUS=Australia; DEU=Germany; ESP=Spain; FRA=France; GBR=United Kingdom; ITA=Italy; JPN=Japan; USA=United States of America; ZAF=South African Republic;.


4200

5

Results for Other Evaluation Scales

Milk:

Domestic bulls disadvantaged on scales of CAN, ITA, and NLD similarly to US bulls on the US scale

Domestic bulls generally favored on scales of AUS and DEU


4200

5


Milk:



Fat: Bulls from AUS, GBR, and ZAF were favored on scales of CAN, FRA, ITA, and NLD

All but NZL and ZAF bulls disadvantaged on AUS scale


4200

5


Milk:



Fat: Bulls from AUS, GBR, and ZAF were favored on scales of CAN, FRA, ITA, and NLD

All but NZL and ZAF bulls disadvantaged on AUS scale

Protein results similar to milk


4200

5

Possible Complications

Genetic correlations

Parent averages (completeness and phantom grouping)

National animal model vs. sire-MGS MACE

Preferential treatment

Pre-selection (markers, etc.)


4200

5

Conclusions

Apparent biases for yields but not SCS

Some countries appear disadvantaged while others are favored across all country scales

Caused by shortcomings in national systems or international system?

Source of biases unknown and may be different for different country pairs

Documents

2004 R. L. Powell, A. H. Sanders, and H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD [email protected]