The working group recommends the following topics to the committee and the General Assembly :

2. To:Members WHFFAuthor:Arie Hamoen, WHFF working group harmonisation type classification Date:Arnhem, March 11th, 2010 Our reference:VD/10.0184/AH/AA Subject:Results and Recommendations 9th WHFF World Classifiers Workshop, Paris, February2010 • The working group recommends the following topics to the committee and the General Assembly: • Change the definition of Teat Length particularly the reference point. • By scoring the leg traits Rear Legs, Rear View, Rear Legs Set and Foot Angle; in case of a significant difference in the quality of both sides the worse side must be scored. • With the other 14 standard traits no changes are being made. • To improve the correlations only the traits are to be scored according WHFF definitions and to provide Interbull only with recent data. • Countries which not yet score all WHFF standard traits should pass, this counts especially for the traits Locomotion and Body Condition. • The next workshop is held in …….. in 2012.

3. Short explanation on the recommandations: Ad a) With the trait Teat Length is recommended to score the length of the front teat or the rear teat. The correlations show that these are genetically the same traits. Appendix B shows the new reference scale. Ad b) In attempt to increase the correlations between countries and practice demands the worse side to be judged since this is of great importance at mating. Ad c) Appendix B: All standard traits are mentioned with their actual definition. Ad d) Obvious. Ad e) Fertility and Feet and Legs are important issues in discussing our Holstein population. Therefore it is particularly important that where possible information on these traits are being collected. Ad f) Although there was an official request from New Zealand to organise the workshop there, the working group still suggests to occur the workshop in ….. since too much countries indicated that high travelling expenses and long travelling time prevent them from attending.

4. Further matters from the 9th WHFF World Classifiers Workshop (February 27th – March 1st 2010) • More than 50 participants from 28 countries attend this workshop, well organized by Prim ‘Holstein in Paris. • At the opening of the workshop three countries were especially welcomed at there first participation at the workshop, namely China, Korea and Switzerland (Red herdbook). • The chairman of the working group then gave an overview from the beginning (1990) to date, which was addressed in particular the decisions made by the General assembly WHFF taken in 2008 (Killarney, Ireland). During this General assembly the propositions of the workshops Naarden 2005 and Cremona 2007 were accepted, f.e. Locomotion and Condition scores are accepted as standard trait. • All working group members were present: Gabriel Blanco (ES), Tom Byers (CA), Bernardo Busso (AR), John Connor (USA), John Gribbon (UK), Stefan Rensing (DE), Nobuo Onishi (JP), Corrado Zilocchi (IT) and Arie Hamoen (NL) as chairman. • List of participants, see appendix C. • Since 1999 Interbull is converting bull proofs between the member countries. The correlations between countries estimated by Interbull for each trait are a good measure to see how similar conformation traits are scored for different countries. The correlation between countries still improves; comparing 2001 with 2010 the average correlation on linear traits rises from 0.80 to 0.85.

5. In the January 2010 Interbull genetic evaluation for conformations 19 countries or country groups participated. Of the 21 traits (see appendix A) 18 traits were defined as official linear traits by the WHFF. By Gerben de Jong (NL) these correlations were further explained, six traits already have an average correlation of least 0.90 but also six lower than 0.80. In some cases the low average correlation is due to the fact that one or a few countries do not score the actual trait and have asked Interbull to use breeding values of another trait. But the low correlations are also caused in some cases due to the fact that for the same trait a different definition is applied by a country than the definition formulated by the WHFF. • Working group member Stefan Rensing gave an explaination over the recent developments in Feet & Legs traits and an update on international harmonization. For Locomotion Interbull routine runs since January 2009 with 10 countries, only a few countries with Locomotion since 2007. Holstein USA research on Locomotion since September 2008 and one of the conclusions is “Locomotion is a different trait that gives extra information”. Projects in DFS, NL en DE with recording direct hoof/foot health traits shows that only Locomotion had a good correlation with this direct traits. He therefore called on all countries to score effectively on Locomotion according to the WHFF definition. • During the practical part much attention is paid on scoring Locomotion. • By Gerben de Jong (NL) the activities and achievements of the ICAR Working group to lay down guidelines for data collection and quality exterior has been discussed. The WHFF traits and definitions are the basic principles of dairy cattle. • Argentina and Germany have given an explanation of their classification system. The Netherlands showed the effect of the change of definition Angularity. On the old WHFF definition Angularity was negatively correlated with Body Condition but while using the new definition it turned out positive. • By Gerben de Jong (NL), Stefan Rensing (DE) and Bethany Muir (CA) the background surrounded “Genomics” was examined followed by a discussion on the possible impact on the work of inspectors.

6. Appendix A: Average of genetic correlation between countries for 21 traits analysed by Interbull. An average is based on the average correlation one country has with all other countries.

7. Update on correlations conformation traits between countries 2010 Gerben de Jong January 2010

8. Introduction • WHFF : >20 years harmonisation (1986) • linear traits • currently 18 • Check available : INTERBULL evaluations • since 1999 • correlations between countries • Correlation = measure of harmonisation of traits • Overview on correlations for • linear traits • general characteristics

9. Data • Correlations of January 2010 Interbull evaluations • 19 countries/evaluation systems • Countries: AUS BEL CAN CHE (CHR) CZE DEU DFS(DNK,FIN,SWE) ESP EST FRA GBR (GBR+IRL) HUN ITA JAP NLD (NLD+FLA) NZL POL USA ZAF • 18 linear traits • 3 generals: Udder, F&L, Final Score--> all in paper--> summary in presentation

10. average correlation trait =<0.80 0.80< <=0.90 >= 0.90 stature 0.91 chest width 0.80 body depth 0.81 angularity 0.75 rump angle 0.94 rump width 0.87 rear leg set 0.84 rear leg rear view 0.74 foot angle 0.74 fore udder 0.83 rear udder height 0.82 udder support 0.78dder depth udder depth 0.97 .95 teat placement 0.93 teat length 0.94 rear teat placement 0.90 locomotion 0.72 body condition 0.77 overall conformation 0.75 overall udder 0.81 overall feet & legs 0.69

11. Average correlation per trait • 6 linear traits: oke • 5 linear traits: moderate • 7 linear traits: low • generals overall and F&L: low udder: moderate • Average correlation production traits • milk: 0.88 • fat: 0.87

12. Average of genetic correlation between countries for 21 traits analysed by Interbull

20. locomotion

22. Locomotion Rlsrv Composite Germany Belgium Switzerland France Canada Great Britain DFS Italy ? Netherlands USA ? Spain Czech Rep.

27. 2007:0.90

28. New since 2005

29. New since 2005

30. BCS Belgium Switzerland Germany Denmakr/Sweden/Finland Great Britain Netherlands Czech Rep.

34. ICAR WG Conformation Gerben de Jong Animal Evaluation Unit

35. Objectives of WG • Standardise the methods of assessment of conformation in accordance with rules and standards as established by each world / international federation of respective breeds • Breeds to consider • dairy and beef breeds • other breeds (goats, sheep, horses) • Improve transparency in data collection and quality control

36. Topics • Describe standards for traits for assessment of conformation • Describe methods to improve the quality of the assessment by an organisation • monitor system for classfiers • Discussion platform for new issues

37. WG Members • Gerben de Jong • Lucy Andrews • Gabriel Blanco • Laszlo Bognar • Bethany Muir

38. Working plan • Survey on traits scored in dairy breeds • Holstein Friesian • other than Holstein • describe traits which are scored rather commonly • Survey in beef breed on traits • Describe how to improve quality of data and transparency

39. Survey on trait in dairy breeds • Common traits, other than in current ICAR list: • Hock development 6 CZE,TUR,DNK,SWE,FIN,GER • Top Line 4 DNK,SWE,FIN,BEL • Bone structure 4 DNK,SWE,FIN,BEL • Rear udder width 5 DNK,SWE,FIN,SLO,POL • Teat thickness 7 DNK,SWE,FIN,CZE,NOR,POL • Muscularity 5 CZE,TUR,BEL,POL,GER • Some traits more scored in red breeds, dual purpose breeds

40. Improvement of data quality and transparency • Classifiers should work in a good system • head classifier • work independently • do not apply pre-corrections (age, lactation stage) • no pedigree should be applied on cows • works across regions • advisory group with • different expertise (classification, statistics, breeding, training) • focus on improvement of the system • backup for head classifier

41. Improvement of data quality and transparency • Classifiers are the key • need good training • monitoring system - feed back • should work in a transparent system

42. For ICAR important topics • A. Improve accuracy of data collection • all classifiers apply the same trait definition • apply the same mean • apply the same spread • B. Improve genetic correlation between countries -> exchange genetics • apply the same trait definition

43. A. Improve accuracy of data collection • Tools • national group training sessions • statistical monitoring of classifiers’ performances • mean, spread, normal distribution • compute correlations between classifiers

44. B. Improve genetic correlation between countries • Tools • international training sessions of head classifiers • international group training sessions • audit system • optimise genetic evaluation system • with trait definition change -> right action in the EBV system

45. National group training sessions • Attention points for group of cows used: • representative for the whole cow population • discuss the results openly • why this score on this cow • analyse the scores of each classifier • mean and standard deviation • compute the spread of the deviation of the scores • deviation from group mean of score of classifier -> check on consistency

46. Statistical monitoring classifiers • Select scores of a certain period (12 months) • Compute mean and stdev • stdev should be close to the optimum stdev= (maxscore - minscore +1)/6 • Compute correlation between classifiers • explanation of procedure

47. Thank you for your attention