M.T. Kuhn and J.L. Hutchison
Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705-2350
2007 J. Dairy Sci. (?)
© American Dairy Science Association,
2007. All rights reserved.
Individuals may download, store, or print single
copies solely for personal use.
Do not share personal accounts or passwords
for the purposes of disseminating this article.
The objectives of this
research were to compare linear and threshold models for US phenotypic
evaluation of bull fertility, based on field data, and to determine the
consequences of matings with unknown outcomes (unconfirmed matings). The effect
of errors in positive pregnancy exams was also investigated. Both simulation
and field data were used to address these objectives, but simulation was the
primary method used for comparison. Linear model predictions compared in
simulation included 1) using the true (binary) data, 2) setting all last
services on file to success, 3) unconfirmed matings deleted, 4) unconfirmed
matings deleted with additional herd edits, and 5) a 10% error rate in positive
pregnancy exams. The 3 threshold predictors compared in simulation corresponded
to options 1, 2, and 4 used for the linear model. In simulation, predictions
were compared to true values using, primarily, correlations and mean
differences. Two general types of comparisons were done with field data: 1)
evaluations from linear and threshold models were simply compared to each other
(correlations and mean differences) and 2) predicted conception rates (CR) were
compared to observed future yr CR, where the future yr data was not included in
estimation.
Results with
both simulated and real data showed no advantage of threshold over linear model
evaluations. In simulation, correlations with true values were identical for
the 2 models and mean differences were actually slightly closer to 0 for the
linear model. With real data, the 2 models provided nearly identical
evaluations; the largest difference between the linear and threshold model
predictions, across all 4,790 bulls evaluated, was 0.8%. Linear and threshold
models can be used indifferently for prediction of US service sire CR.
Unconfirmed matings account
for only 2% of all breedings in the US. Deleting unconfirmed matings provided
better evaluations than assuming all last services to be successes. The effect
of deleting unconfirmed matings was small and largely negligible. Across all
bulls, the loss in accuracy, relative to knowing all true outcomes, was only
0.3%. Young bulls have a larger percentage of unconfirmed matings than older
bulls because the frequency of unconfirmed matings is higher in the most recent
yr and young bulls have a larger proportion of their breedings in the most
recent yr. Even young bulls, though, had only a 1% loss in accuracy, relative
to knowing all true outcomes. Furthermore, bias due to deleting unconfirmed
matings was negligible because the effect on the mean is partitioned largely
into fixed effects. Excluding unconfirmed matings will provide satisfactory
predictions. Pregnancy check errors resulted in only a slight additional loss
of accuracy and no bias. While methods to incorporate unconfirmed matings are
not necessarily to be discouraged, they will provide at most only slight
improvements to US bull fertility evaluations.
(Key words: bull fertility, conception rate, threshold model, artificial insemination)