International High Protein Cows
November 2000

Paul VanRaden and Rex Powell
USDA Animal Improvement Programs Lab

Cow evaluations are not as reliable or easy to interpret as bull evaluations, and international rankings for cows were not available. To determine if foreign cow selection could be made easier, Interbull participants were asked by USDA to provide evaluations for their top 1000 Holstein cows for protein yield in a common data exchange format. Evaluations were received in Interbull format 010 or in World Holstein Friesian Federation format 130. The 7 countries listed in Table 1 contributed data.

November 2000 Interbull conversion formulas and genetic correlations were applied to the evaluations received. The highest protein evaluation from each country and its reliability are listed in Table 1 so that the converted evaluations and reliabilities can be verified. Reliability in the receiving country equaled reliability in the sending country multiplied by the square of the genetic correlation.

A summary of the top 1000 cows for protein yield from the seven countries is in Table 2. Because genetic correlations are < 1.0 and regressions are not reciprocal, each country has more top cows on its own scale than on other country scales. The combined lists of highest 1000 cow evaluations for protein converted to the appropriate national scale was distributed to participating countries.

Requirements for a cow to be included differed across countries. For example, only evaluations for live cows were provided by The Netherlands. The United States input data for November also excluded known dead cows because only cows on the elite and high-ranking grade lists were included. Other countries also may have only cows from certain testing plans or only registered cows in their national lists of top cows.

This project on international cow ranking will be discontinued for now, pending the outcome of the more important project on exchange of cow evaluations across countries. Once this service is established, international cow ranking could be revived as a subsidiary service. This brief experiment was educational and has provided a number of questions that should be answered before a fully useful service can be made available.

Table 1. National Holstein cow evaluations received and highest cow from each nation.

High cow for protein
Country Format Evaluation Reliability Sire name
Belgium ITB010 +53 50% Maizefield Bellwood
Estonia ITB010 +56.53 43% Etazon Leaf
Ireland ITB010 +24 57% Nordkap
Netherlands ITB010 +74 59% Delta Cleitus Jabot
Slovenia ITB010 +33.55 66% Plushanski Odin
Switzerland WHFF130 +64 40% Singing-Brook N-B Mascot
United States ITB010 +116 50% Fatal


Table 2. Location of top 1000 Holstein cows for protein yield.

Presented on scale for
COUNTRY BEL EST IRL NLD SLO CHE USA
Belgium (BEL) 6 6 5 4 6 8 5
Estonia (EST) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ireland (IRL) 67 94 175 46 134 94 46
Netherlands (NLD) 300 222 160 325 160 222 121
Slovenia (SLO) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Switzerland (CHE) 7 12 12 5 12 23 4
United States (USA) 620 665 648 620 688 653 824
TOTAL 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

The combined list of the top 1000 cows for protein from the 7 countries above, after conversion to the USA scale, using November 2000 Interbull conversions is available in TEXT format.

These converted cow evaluations are in the following format.

1-19 cow identification

21-23 sending country code (the cow's ID may be from another country)

25-27 receiving country code (evaluations are expressed on this scale)

28 begin 3 repeated segments

1 blank for separation

2 trait (M, F, or P)

3-5 reliability on receiving country's scale

6-12 evaluation on receiving country's scale