medigraphic.com

2003, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2003; 34 (2)

Economic evaluation of Holstein sire selection strategies for herds in Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands and the United States using stochastic simulation

Montaldo HH, Keown JF, Dale van VL, van TCP

Language: English/Spanish
References: 43
Page: 179-201
PDF size: 212.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Stochastically simulated dairy herds with genetic, economic and managerial parameters for milk, fat and protein production in Italy, The Netherlands and the United States, and for milk yield in Mexico for investment horizons of 10 and 20 years were used to evaluate sire selection strategies. One to twenty progeny and pedigree-evaluated sires that were commercially available from US AI units in january of 1996, and genetic trends, were used as a basis for selection on expected profit each year. The use of 20 randomly chosen young testing sires with low semen cost was also evaluated. Average profit, lower 95% confidence limit of profit (LCL95), and utility (profit –0.06 × variance of profit) were obtained on the basis of 1 000 replicates. Simulations using one sire per year always gave the maximum average profit. The number of sires for maximum response for LCL95 were smaller in countries with greater profits and an investment horizon of 20 years. For utility, the number of sires for maximum response tended to be 10 to 20 in most situations. Use of either selected progeny-evaluated, or young selected sires, was superior to use of randomly chosen young sires for profit, and LCL95 for profit, at year 20 in all countries and herd sizes studied, but was generally inferior for utility at year 10. The effect of herd size on optimum decisions was small, although LCL95, and, especially, utility were substantially lower for herds of less than 100 cows. A value of –0.06 times the variance of profit in the calculation of utility seems unnecessarily low for restraining risk. Optimum selection of dairy sires for AI depend on economic and managerial conditions and on the degree of risk aversion, as well as the investment horizon. Hence, optimum strategies for sire selection will differ among countries and even among producers within a country.


REFERENCES

  1. Goddard ME, Wiggans GR. Genetic improvement of dairy cattle. In: Fries RA., Ruvinsky A, editors. The genetics of cattle. Oxon, UK:CAB International, 1999:511-537.

  2. 2. Harris BL, Freeman AE. Economic weights for milk yield traits and herd life under various economic conditions and production quotas. J Dairy Sci 1993;76:868-879.

  3. 3. Van Vleck LD. Evaluation of dairy cattle breeding programs: Specialized milk production. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics applied to Livestock Production, 1986 July 16-22; Lincoln, Nebraska, USA:University of Nebraska, 1986; 9:141-152.

  4. 4. Weller JI. Economic aspects of animal breeding. London, UK:Chapman and Hall, 1994.

  5. 5. Schneeberger M, Freeman AE, Berger PJ. Income and risk for dairymen selecting sires for artificial insemination. J Dairy Sci 1982;65:988-994.

  6. 6. Anderson JR, Dillon JL, Hardaker TB. Agricultural decision analysis. Ames (Io):Iowa State University Press, 1977.

  7. 7. Schneeberger M, Freeman AE, Boehlje MD. Application of portfolio theory to dairy sire selection. J Dairy Sci 1982;65:404-409.

  8. 8. Powell RL. Interbull evaluations are here. Holstein Wld 1995;May:568-570.

  9. 9. Everett RW. Income over investment in semen. J Dairy Sci 1975;58:1717-1722.

  10. Leitch HW, Gibson JPJ, Dekkers CM, Burnside EB. Maximizing utility when selecting bulls globally. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 1994 August 7-12; Guelph, Ontario, Canada:University of Guelph, 1994;17:141-152.

  11. Schneeberger M, Freeman AE, Berger PJ. Costs and risks for sire selection strategies in artificial insemination. J Dairy Sci 1981;64:491-496.

  12. Dekkers JCM, Shook GE. A semi-stochastic model for simulation of genetic improvement by commercial artificial insemination firms in a large dairy cattle population. J Anim Breed Genet 1990;107:321-339.

  13. Koopman JNM, Smith C, Dekkers JCM. Effect of bull sire selection strategies on competitiveness of dairy AI studs. Livest Prod Sci 1992;32:295-307.

  14. Albuquerque LG, Keown JF, Van Vleck LD. Genetic parameters of milk, fat, and protein yields in the first three lactations, using an animal model and restricted maximum likelihood. Braz J Genetics 1996;19:79-86.

  15. Bagnato A, Jansen G, Cerutti F, Pagnacco G. Caratteri produttivi della Frisona italiana ereditabilità e correlazioni. Memoria delle IX Congresso Nationale Associazione Scientifica di Produzione Animale, 1991 June 3-7; Roma, Italia: Associazione Scientifica di Produzione Animale 1991:595-601.

  16. Van der Werf JHJ, de Boer W. Estimation of genetic parameters in a crossbred population of Black and White dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1989;72:2615-2623.

  17. Stanton TL, Blake RW, Quaas RL, Van Vleck LD. Response to selection of United States Holsteins in Latin America. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:651-664.

  18. Montaldo HH, Torres S. Repetibilidad de la producción de leche e intervalo entre partos en una población de vacas Holstein en México. Arch Zootec 1993;42:361-366.

  19. Van Vleck LD. Selection index and introduction to mixed model methods. Boca Raton (Fl): CRC Press, 1993.

  20. Norman HD. Animal improvement laboratory USDA Newsletter. Beltsville (Md):USDA,1995.

  21. Wilmink JMB. Selection for economic milk production in The Netherlands. VeeproHolland;1989;August:10-11.

  22. Holmann F, Blake RW, Hahn MV, Barker R, Milligan RA, Oltenacu PA, et al. Comparative profitability of purebred and crossbred Holstein herds in Venezuela. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:2190-2205.

  23. Dunklee JS, Freeman AE, Kelley DH. Comparison of Holsteins selected for high and average milk production. 1. Net income and production response to selection for milk. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:1890-1896.

  24. Hansen LB, Young CW, Chester-Jones H. Net value of genetic improvement: current stocks vs. controls. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 1990 July 23-27, Edinburgh, Scotland (UK):University of Edinburgh, 1990;5:74-77.

  25. VanRaden PM, Schutz MM, Wiggans GR. Calculation of USDA-DHIA Net Merit, AIPL, ARS, USDA; Beltsville (Md):USDA, 1993.

  26. Short TH, Blake RW, Quaas RL, Van Vleck LD. Heterogeneous within-herd variance. 1. Genetic parameters for first and second lactation milk yield of grade Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:3312-3320.

  27. Abubakar BY, McDowell RE, Van Vleck LD. Interaction of genotype x environment for breeding efficiency and milk production of Holsteins in Mexico and Columbia. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 1987;64:17-22.

  28. McGilliard ML. Guidelines for purchasing semen. J Dairy Sci 1978;61:1680-1682.

  29. Montaldo HH. Comparación de alternativas de selección para el incremento del potencial productivo en la población de vacas lecheras especializadas en México. (tesis de Maestría en Producción Animal:Genética). México (DF): México:Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, UNAM, 1989.

  30. Samuelson DJ, Pearson RE. Accuracy of predicting genetic merit from pedigree information for bulls entering stud sampling programs. J Dairy Sci 1995;78:2057-2066.

  31. Powell RL. Calculation of Holstein conversion formulas between U.S. or Canada and Mexico. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA. Beltsville (Md):USDA, 1995.

  32. Montaldo HH, Keown JF, Van Vleck LD, Van Tassell CP. Índices de máximo beneficio económico para la selección de sementales Holstein en México. Vet Méx 1999;30:130-136.

  33. Dekkers JCM, Shook GE. Economic evaluation of alternative breeding programs for commercial artificial insemination firms. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:1902-1919.

  34. Montaldo HH, Mendoza B, Castro H, Berruecos JM. Economic and genetic evaluation of breeding strategies for the Mexican Holstein population. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 1994 August 7-12; Guelph, Ontario, Canada:University of Guelph, 1994;17:54-56.

  35. Montaldo HH. Optimization of selection response using artificial insemination and new reproductive technologies in dairy cattle. (Ph.D. dissertation), Lincoln (Ne):University of Nebraka, 1997.

  36. Blake RW, Holmann FJ, Gutiérrez J, Cevallos GF. Comparative profitability of United States Holstein artificial insemination sires in Mexico. J Dairy Sci 1988;71:1378-1388.

  37. Holmann F, Blake RW, Milligan RA, Barker R, Oltenacu PA, Hahn MV. Economic returns from United States artificial insemination sires in Holstein herds in Columbia, Mexico and Venezuela. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:2179-2189.

  38. Groen AF, Ruyter TPL. Derivation of values of milk production traits: a literature review. current stocks vs. controls. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 1990 July 23-27, Edinburgh, Scotland (UK):University of Edinburgh, 1990;14:191-194.

  39. Gibson JP. Selection on the major components of milk: alternate methods of deriving economic weights. J Dairy Sci 1989;72:3176-3189.

  40. Gibson JP. The effect of pricing systems, economic weights, and population parameters on economic response to selection on milk components. J Dairy Sci 1989b;72:3314-3326.

  41. Van Vleck LD. Breeding for increased protein content in milk. J Dairy Sci 1978;61:815-824.

  42. Powell RL. Effect of economic indexes on international sire selection. Proceedings of the Interbull Annual Meeting; Bulletin No 11, 1995 September 7-8; Prague, Chzech Republic.Interbull, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden: Interbull, SLU, 1995:3.

  43. Klieve HM, Kinghorn BP, Barwick SA. The value of accuracy in making breeding decisions. J Anim Breed Genet 1993;110:1-12.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com