Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Norway (1) 2005
Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United StatesDr. H. Duane Norman
Animal Improvement Programs LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service, USDABeltsville, MD 20705-2350, USA
[email protected] 301-504-8334
Norway (2) 2005
U.S. dairy statistics (2004)
9.0 million cows
67,000 herds
135 cows/herd
19,000 lb (8600 kg)/cow
~93% Holsteins, ~5% Jerseys
~75% bred AI
46% milk recorded through Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI)
Norway (3) 2005
U.S. dairy population and yield
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 00Year
Cow
s (m
illions)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Milk yield
(kg/co
w)
Norway (4) 2005
DHI statistics (2004)
4.1 million cows– 97% fat recorded– 93% protein recorded– 93% SCC recorded
25,000 herds
164 cows/herd
21,250 lb (9640 kg)/cow– 3.69% fat– 3.09% (true) protein
Norway (5) 2005
U.S. progeny-test bulls (2000) Major and marketing-only AI
organizations plus breeder proven
Breeds
– Ayrshire 10 bulls– Brown Swiss 53 bulls– Guernsey 15 bulls– Holstein 1436 bulls– Jersey 116 bulls– Milking Shorthorn 1 bull
Norway (6) 2005
National Dairy Genetic Evaluation Program
AIPL CDCB
NAAB
PDCA DHI
UniversitiesAIPL Animal Improvement Programs Lab., USDA
CDCBCouncil on Dairy Cattle BreedingDHI Dairy Herd Improvement (milk recording organizations)NAAB National Association of Animal Breeders (AI)PDCAPurebred Dairy Cattle Association (breed registries)
Norway (7) 2005
AIPL mission
Conduct research to discover, test, and implement improved genetic evaluation techniques for economically important traits of dairy cattle and goats
Genetically improve efficiency of dairy animals for yield (milk, fat, protein) and fitness (longevity, mastitis resistance, reproduction, conformation)
Norway (8) 2005
AIPL research objectives
Maintain a national database with animal identification, production (yield, milk composition), fitness (conformation, longevity), reproduction (dystocia, fertility), and health (mastitis, disease resistance) traits to support research on dairy genetics and management; provide data to others researchers submitting proposals compatible with industry wishes
Norway (9) 2005
AIPL research objectives (cont.)
Increase accuracy of genetic evaluations for traits through improved methodology and through inclusion and appropriate weighting of deviant data
Develop bioinformatic tools to automate data processing in support of quantitative trait locus detection, marker testing, and mapping methods
Norway (10) 2005
AIPL research objectives (cont.)
Improve genetic rankings for overall economic merit by evaluating appropriate traits and by determining economic values of those traits in the index; improved profit functions are derived from reviewing incomes and expenses associated with each trait available for selection
Norway (11) 2005
AIPL research objectives (cont.)
Characterize dairy industry practices in milk recording, breed registry, and artificial-insemination to document status and changes in data collection and use and in observed and genetic trends in the population
Norway (12) 2005
Traits evaluated
Yield (milk, fat, protein volume; component percentages)
Type/conformation
Productive life/longevity
Somatic cell score/mastitis resistance
Fertility– Daughter pregnancy rate (cow)– Estimated relative conception rate
(bull)
Calving ease/dystocia (service sire, daughter)
2004
Norway (13) 2005
Evaluation methods
Animal model (linear)– Yield (milk, fat, protein)– Type
(Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, Jersey)– Productive life– SCS– Daughter pregnancy rate
Sire – maternal grandsire model (threshold)– Service sire calving ease– Daughter calving ease
2004
Heritability
25 – 40%7 – 54%
8.5%12%4%
8.6%3.6%
Norway (14) 2005
Genetic trend – Milk
2004
-3500-3000-2500-2000-1500-1000-500
0500
1000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alue
(kg)
Phenotypic base = 11,638 kg
sires
Norway (15) 2005
Genetic trend – Fat
2004
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alue
(kg) Phenotypic base = 424 kg
sires
Norway (16) 2005
Genetic trend – Protein
2004
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alue
(kg) Phenotypic base = 350 kg
sires
Norway (17) 2005
Genetic trend – Productive life (mo)
2004
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alue
(month
s)
Phenotypic base = 24.6 months
sires
Norway (18) 2005
Genetic trend – Somatic cell score
2004
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
.05
.10
1985 1990 1995 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alu
e (log b
ase
2)
Phenotypic base = 3.08 (log base 2)
sires
Norway (19) 2005
Genetic trend – Daughter pregnancy rate (%)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Holstein birth year
Bre
edin
g v
alue
(%)
Phenotypic base = 21.53%
sires
Norway (20) 2005
Genetic trend – calving ease
2004
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Holstein birth year
PTA
%D
BH
(diffi
cult b
irth
s in
hei
fers
)
servicesire
daughter
Phenotypic base = 8.47% DBHPhenotypic base = 7.99% DBH
Norway (21) 2005
Genetic-economic indexes
2004
Trait
Relative value (%)Chees
emerit
Net merit
Fluid
merit
Protein (lb) 36 33 9Fat (lb) 18 22 22Milk (lb) –10 0 24Productive life (mo) 9 11 11Somatic cell score (log base 2)
–7 –9 –9
Udder composite 6 7 7Feet/legs composite 3 4 4Body size composite –2 –3 –3Daughter pregnancy rate (%)
5 7 7
Service sire calving difficulty (%)
–2 –2 –2
Daughter calving difficulty (%)
–2 –2 –2
Norway (22) 2005
Index changes
2004
PTA traits included
Relative emphasis on traits in index (%)
PD$(1971
)
MFP$(1976)
CY$(1984)
NM$(1994)
NM$(2000)
NM$(2003)
Milk 52 27 –2 6 5 0Fat 48 46 45 25 21 22Protein … 27 53 43 36 33Productive life … … … 20 14 11Somatic cell score … … … –6 –9 –9Udder composite … … … … 7 7Feet/legs composite … … … … 4 4Body size composite … … … … –4 –3Daughter pregnancy rate
… … … … … 7
Service sire calving difficulty
… … … … … –2
Daughter calving difficulty
… … … … … –2
