Experience with a Test-Day Model
L. R. Schaeffer, J. Jamrozik, G. J. Kistemaker,
ABSTRACT
The Canadian Test-Day Model is a 12-trait random
regression animal model in which traits are milk, fat,
and protein test-day yields, and somatic cell scores on
test days within each of first three lactations. Test-
day records from later lactations are not used. Random
regressions (genetic and permanent environmental)
were based on Wilmink’s three parameter function that
includes an intercept, regression on days in milk, and
regression on an exponential function to the power
−0.05 times days in milk. The model was applied to
over 22 million test-day records of over 1.4 million cows
in seven dairy breeds for cows first calving since 1988.
A theoretical comparison of test-day model to 305-d
complete lactation animal model is given. Each animal
in an analysis receives 36 additive genetic solutions (12
traits by three regression coefficients), and these are
combined to give one estimated breeding value (EBV)
for each of milk, fat, and protein yields, average daily
somatic cell score and milk yield persistency (for bulls
only). Correlation of yield EBV with previous 305-d
lactation model EBV for bulls was 0.97 and for cows
was 0.93 (Holsteins). A question is whether EBV for
yield traits for each lactation should be combined into
one overall EBV, and if so, what method to combine
them. Implementation required development of new
methods for approximation of reliabilities of EBV, inclu-
sion of cows without test day records in analysis, but
which were still alive and had progeny with test-day
records, adjustments for heterogeneous herd-test date
variances, and international comparisons. Efforts to in-
form the dairy industry about changes in EBV due to
the model and recovering information needed to explain
changes in specific animals’ EBV are significant chal-
lenges. The Canadian dairy industry will require a year
or more to become comfortable with the test-day model
Received June 21, 1999.
Accepted November 11, 1999.
Corresponding author: L. R. Schaeffer; e-mail: lrs@sherlock.aps.
uoguelph.ca.
2000 J Dairy Sci 83:1135–1144
and B. J. Van Doormaal†
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock,
Department of Animal and Poultry Science,
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1 and
†Canadian Dairy Network, 150 Research Lane, Suite 307,
Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 4T2
and to realize the impact it could have on selection de-
cisions.
(Key words: genetic evaluation, test-day model, ran-
dom regressions, production)
Abbreviation key: AM-PM = alternate morning-eve-
ning milk recording scheme, CPU = central processing
unit, CTDM = Canadian Test-Day Model, LPI = life-
time profit index, TEV = total economic value.
INTRODUCTION
Canada officially adopted a multiple-trait, random
regression, test-day animal model, (CTDM), in Febru-
ary 1999 to replace single-trait, repeated lactation rec-
ords, animal models for production traits, and a fixed
regression, test-day model for somatic cell score. The
CTDM evolved from earlier studies on single-trait, ran-
dom regression, test-day animal models over a period
of 7 yr (4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). The differ-
ences in genetic evaluations from CTDM compared with
the previous official methodology were significant in
both theory and practical application. The changes were
from a system 1) where lactation 305-d yields were
considered as repeated measures of the same trait to
a system where each lactation was considered to be a
separate trait and the analyses were on test-day yields,
2) where a standard lactation curve was assumed for
each cow and lactation to a system where each lactation
within a cow could have a different shape of lactation
curve, 3) that included 305-d lactation yields from 1957
to a system that analyzed test-day yields only from
1988 to the present, and 4) that could be computed
easily in a few days to a system that required 2 wk and
a large amount of computer memory. The advantages
of the CTDM are that it allows greater flexibility to be
built into milk recording programs, it removes environ-
mental effects from test-day records more accurately,
it models the shape of the lactation curve and the vari-
ability of yields around some general shapes, and it
provides more accurate genetic evaluations of cows in
the range of 4 to 8% over evaluations from 305-d yields
(11). Persistency within lactations can be estimated ge-
1135
1136
netically as well as across lactations. The variability
between bulls’ daughters regarding where in the lacta-
tion they show their superiority is useful information
for dairy producers.
The objectives of this paper were to provide the exact
model and details about the CTDM and to discuss issues
that arose in the implementation of this new tech-
nology.
CANADIAN TEST DAY MODEL
The CTDM is a multiple-trait, random regression,
test-day animal model. On a given test day, the kth
cow is at day t in its lactation, in parity n (limited to
first, second, or third parity), in herd-test date-parity
group i, and calving within the jth time period, region,
age group within parity, and season subclass. The cow
is observed for 24-h milk, fat, and protein yields and
somatic cell score; the observation vector for a cow on
a given test day can be written as
( )( )
y1nt:ijk 24-h milk yield, kg
y2nt:ijk 24-h fat yield, kg
ynt:ijk = y = 24-h protein yield, kg
3n t:ijk
y4nt:ijk somatic cell score
In some cases, one or more of these traits may be miss-
ing because of the sampling scheme in which the cow
owner may be enrolled, but 24-h milk yield is always
required. The 24-h yields may be actual 24-h weights,
or they may be estimated 24-h yields based on alternate
morning-evening milk recording scheme (AM-PM)
yields or samples from three times a day milkings. The
observations are limited to tests between d 5 and 305
of lactation. The limit of 305 d was partly due to tradi-
tion, to keep the number of test-day records within
reasonable limits, and to avoid including cows with non-
standard or abberant lactation curves.
The model equation is assumed to be the same for
all four traits. For trait h on DIM t it is,
q
∑
yhnt:ijk = HTDhn:i +
βhn:jmztm
m=1
q netic effects and three regression coefficients per cow to
+ ∑ ahn:kmztm
m=1
q permanent environmental effects per cow with records
+ ∑ Phn:kmztm + ehnt:ijk,
m=1
where yhnt:ijk is a record of cow k made on day t of
lactation n within herd-test date-parity effect i, for a
cow belonging to subclass j for time period, region, age
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
SCHAEFFER ET AL.
group within parity, and season of calving; HTDhn:i is
a herd-test date-parity effect on all milking cows in
lactation n in that herd on a specific test date; βhn:jm
are the fixed regression coefficients, which differ by
trait, h, and lactation number, n, and which are specific
to subclass j of time-region-age-parity-season; ahn:km are
the additive genetic, random regression coefficients,
which differ by trait, h, and lactation number, n, and
which are specific to each animal, k; phn:km are the per-
manent environmental, random regression coefficients,
which differ by trait, h, and lactation number, n, and
which are specific to each cow k; ehnt:ijk are the residual
effects for each observation, q is the number of covari-
ates describing the shape of the lactation curves; and
ztm are the covariates associated with DIM, assumed
to be the same for both fixed and random regressions.
The model had five regions within Canada for the Hol-
stein breed (only one region for the other breeds), two
seasons of calving, and initially only one time period
for all breeds. In the lactational animal model, periods
of 5 yr each were formed because differences between
age groups were found to change over time, which
causes biases in genetic evaluations and genetic
trends (13).
Wilmink’s function (20) was chosen to describe the
shapes of the lactation curves. The function is
3
W(t) = ∑ bmztm,
m=1
where zt1 = 1; zt2 = t; and zt3 = exp−0.05t. The value of
−0.05 in the third covariate was estimated by Wilmink
(20) from Dutch Holstein Friesians. Based on Canadian
data, the value that gave the highest correlation with
actual yields was −0.035, but the value that gave the
lowest mean absolute error was −0.07. The differences
in results between −0.035 and −0.07 were not practically
significant. Therefore, the value of −0.05 was kept for
this model.
The full model includes test-day records from the first
three lactations. It is a four-trait model with separate
effects for lactations 1, 2, and 3, specified within the
equation of the model. In total there are 12 traits. For
each animal and trait there are three regression coeffi-
cients to be estimated per animal for the additive ge-
be estimated for the permanent environmental effects.
This gives 36 additive genetic effects per animal and 36
that need to be estimated.
Covariance Matrices
Because each ynt:ijk are separated in time, the residual
(or temporary environmental) effects were assumed to
 SYMPOSIUM: TEST-DAY MODELS
be uncorrelated both within cows and between cows.
The residual covariance matrix for ynt:ijk depends on
the days in milk, and lactation number, and can be
written as
( )
r11 r12 r13 r14
r12 r22 r23 r24
Rnt = r r23 r33 r34
13
r14 r24 r34 r44
where rhh′ is the residual covariance between traits h
and h′. If trait 4 (somatic cell score) was missing on a
particular test day, then r14, r24, r34, and r44 would all
be zero in Rnt. Rather than having 305 different residual
covariance matrices per lactation, the lactation was di-
vided into four periods: 5 to 45 d, 46 to 115 d, 116 to
265 d, and 266 to 305 d. The residual covariance matri-
ces were assumed to be the same within each period.
These matrices must be adjusted for the accuracy of
the 24-h yields. For example, if the accuracy of 24-h
yields based on a single morning milking is 0.89, then
all diagonal elements of Rnt would be divided by 0.89,
thereby increasing the residual variances. The accuracy
of 24-h yields based on the sum of morning and evening
yields was assumed to be 1.00. Accuracies for other
recording schemes are determined from special studies
as in (19).
The covariance matrix of random permanent environ-
mental regression coefficients represented by pk, a 36
by 1 vector, for a cow arranged by traits within lactation
number, is a matrix of order 36 by 36 represented by
P, and the covariance matrix of all animals with test-
day records is a block diagonal matrix, I ⊗ P, where
every block is of order 36.
Similarly, the covariance matrix of random additive
genetic regression coefficients for animal k is repre-
sented by ak a 36 by 1 vector, is a matrix G, of order
36 by 36. The covariance matrix for all animals is A ⊗
G, where A is the numerator relationship matrix for
all animals to be evaluated, which includes inbreeding
coefficients. Thus, the regression coefficients are geneti-
cally related between animals, and within an animal
the regression coefficients for milk yield in first lacta-
tion, for example, are genetically correlated with the
regression coefficients for fat yield, protein yield, and
somatic cell scores in first lactation, but also with coef-
ficients for these traits and milk yield in later lactations.
Through these genetic correlations it is possible for a
cow to have a single test-day milk yield and to have
genetic evaluations for all traits and lactations.
Both G and P are assumed to be constant throughout
Canada for a breed. Separate matrices were estimated
for each breed in Canada, as reported by Jamrozik et
1137
al. (8) but using a model with random regressions for
permanent environmental effects as stated by Schaeffer
(17). Under a 305-d lactation yield animal model, the
heritability of milk, fat, and protein yields was assumed
to be 0.33 for all breeds, but in the CTDM every breed
has been shown to have a very different set of parame-
ters in G, P, and R.
Heterogeneous Variance Adjustment
Heterogeneous herd-test date-parity variances exist
in test day production data. Data were adjusted for
heterogeneous herd-test date-parity variances on a
trait by trait basis. Test-day yields in the first three
lactations were analyzed in a fixed model that included
the effects of DIM within lactations, effects of herd-
test date-parity, fixed regressions (Wilmink’s function)
within time periods-regions-age-season-parity classes,
and fixed regressions within herd groups. The residu-
als, (R = y − ŷ), from this model were used to estimate an
overall residual standard deviation (σ) and to estimate
residual standard deviations for each DIM within par-
ity (σt*p). At the same time, adjustments for the accuracy
of the test-day record using the standard deviation of
24-h, AM-PM, or three times a day testing schemes
(σacc) were made. The residuals were standardized as
Rstd = R
σ
( )
σ
σt*p σ acc
,
to estimate herd-test date-parity variances. Herd-test
date-parity SD were smoothed by averaging SD from
five previous test dates, (σi), in the herd and the overall
average SD for animals in the genetic base, (σmean), to
derive a factor to adjust observations. The genetic bases
are cows that calved within the year 3 yr prior to the
current year. That is,
25σmean + Σi=0
5
(Ci dƒi σi)
Factor = ,
[25 + Σi=0 Ci dƒi] σmean
5
where Ci is the correlation between SD in different test
dates, which depends on the interval in days between
test dates, ranging from 0.70 if the interval is 10 d
to 0.51 if the interval is 90 d, dfi are the number of
observations in a herd-test date-parity subclass, and
25 is a weight roughly equivalent to a herd-test date-
parity subclass with eight cows in it tested every 30 d
(i.e., 25 = Σi=0
5
Ci 8). Finally, the observations were ad-
justed by
(y − ŷ)
yadj = + ŷ,
Factor
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
1138
Table 1. Numbers of test-day records, cows, and herd-test date-parity
(HTDP) sub-classes for February 1999 Canadian Test-Day Model.
Breed TD records Cows
Holstein 20,628,231 1,318,603
Ayrshire 1,004,424 60,661
Jersey 543,769 35,502
Guernsey 98,395 6666
Brown Swiss 96,590 6412
Canadienne 26,977 1747
Milking Shorthorn 9792 679
Total 22,408,178 1,430,270
where ŷ is the predicted y from the analysis. The data
adjusted for herd-test date-parity heterogeneity of vari-
ances were used as input to the genetic evaluation
model.
Data
The immediate challenge in implementation of a test-
day model is the need to handle individual test day
yields rather than 305-d lactation yields. The number
of test-day records is roughly 10 times greater than the
number of 305-d lactation records. A historical database
of test-day records had to be constructed. Data was
retrieved from four milk recording centers in Canada
with varying measures of success, but test-day records
before 1988 were not available except at the cost of re-
entering the data from microfiche. In contrast, com-
pleted 305-d lactation records date back to 1957.
Several levels of edits and minimum standards were
applied to the data prior to inclusion in the database.
These were on the herd level, the cow level, and the
test-day level. Historical test-day records also had to
be matched to existing 305-d completed lactations. At
least 80% of the cows in the 305-d lactation file had to
have matching test-day records by year of calving for
that year of test-day records to be included in genetic
evaluation. This 80% minimum was met in the Mari-
times and Quebec for cows first calving in 1988 and
all subsequent years, 1990 in Ontario, 1991 in British
Columbia, and 1992 in the Prairie provinces. The aver-
age percentage over all years and regions was 97%.
All cows were required to have first lactation test-day
records and only records from the first three lactations
were included in genetic evaluation.
The number of test-day records, cows, and herd-test
date-parity subclasses are given in Table 1 for each
breed for the first official run in February 1999. Cows
averaged 15.7 test-day records (over the first three lac-
tations), and herd-test date-parity subclasses averaged
9.8 test-day records. Even though there would be fewer
years of test-day data for genetic evaluations, the pedi-
grees of animals and the relationship matrix would
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
SCHAEFFER ET AL.
include the same animals as in the previous official
runs.
HTDP
2,057,893 Computing
122,573
71,038
14,344
The calculation of genetic evaluations in the Holstein
22,679 breed required approximately 25 min of central proc-
4497 essing unit (CPU) time per iteration. Mixed model
2155
2,295,179 equations for the multiple-trait random regression
model on the full data set were solved by iteration on
data with Gauss-Seidel and block iteration techniques.
Two copies of the data set (sorted by HTD and cow,
respectively) and inverted diagonal matrices for each
block were read in each iteration. Pedigree data were
stored in memory with animals ordered from youngest
to oldest. The computer was an HP-UX 9000/800 (Hew-
lett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA) workstation with
2 gigabytes of random access memory. A minimum of
300 iterations are performed per run; starting values
are solutions from the previous run. The achieved con-
vergence criteria of sum of squares of differences be-
tween new and old solutions divided by the sum of
squares of the new solutions was less than 9.9 × 10−8.
Use of solutions from the previous run greatly reduces
the number of iterations that are needed.
With nearly 2 million animals in the Holstein breed
(cows with records and ancestor dams and sires) and
with 36 genetic regression coefficients per animal, the
amount of memory needed to hold solutions and right-
hand sides of mixed model equations during the itera-
tion process was close to 1.3 gigabytes of random access
memory. To save solutions and diagonal blocks for all
animals, as well as other information needed for publi-
cation of results, a total of 16 gigabytes of disk storage
was required. Thus, adequate computing resources are
a key requirement for running the CTDM. Computer
technology will likely make advances and better com-
puting algorithms may be found to reduce the time
needed per run (6).
Genetic Evaluations
Each animal receives three additive genetic regres-
sion coefficients for each of 12 traits, or 36 total solu-
tions. These coefficients are used to calculate 305-d EBV
for each of the twelve traits. Let âkhnm represent the
mth coefficient for trait h in lactation n and animal k,
then a 305-d EBV is
EBVkhn = 305 âkhn1 + 46,665 âkhn2 + 19.5042 âkhn3,
for milk, fat, and protein yields (expressed in kilo-
grams) and
 SYMPOSIUM: TEST-DAY MODELS
ETAkhn = 0.5(âkhn1 + 153 âkhn2 + 0.063948 âkhn3),
for average somatic cell score over the lactation, ex-
pressed as an ETA. See Jamrozik et al. (7) for derivation
of the coefficients used in these equations. The EBV and
ETA are expressed relative to a genetic base, defined as
cows calving in the calendar year three years prior to
the current year and having test-day records in the
analysis. The Canadian genetic base is a rolling genetic
base that gets updated in the first run of each year,
contrary to other countries, such as the United States,
which updates its genetic base every 5 yr.
Persistency of milk yield can also be computed from
the solutions to the CTDM. First, calculate EBV for
yields on d 60 and d 280 of lactation as
EBVkhn:60 = âkhn1 + 60 âkhn2 + 0.049787 âkhn3,
and
EBVkhn:280 = âkhn1 + 280 âkhn2 + 0.00000083 âkhn3,
then if ȳ60 and ȳ280 are the average yields of cows in
the genetic base on d 60 and 280, respectively, then
persistency expressed in ETA is
0.5(EBVkhn:280 − EBVkhn:60) + ȳ280
ETAkhn:p = × 100%.
ȳ60
Persistency ETA were calculated for milk yield only,
but for each lactation separately, and only for bulls.
Persistency ETA for cows could be affected by number
of days open in that lactation, but this effect was as-
sumed to average out over all progeny of a dairy bull.
Without reliable conception dates on cows during the
lactation, it is not possible to accurately account for
number of days open in the model.
Before the adoption of CTDM dairy producers were
accustomed to seeing only one EBV for each yield trait
and the separate EBV for each lactation needed to be
reduced into one figure each of milk, fat, protein, so-
matic cell score, and persistency. The yield traits had
to be standardized to a common SD before they could
be combined. The desired SD (σdes) was the SD of the
old 305-d lactation EBV for officially published bulls.
The SD (σ) of yield trait EBV of bulls that qualify for
official publication and were born between 1984 to 1993
inclusive were used to standardize the EBV within each
lactation, as
σdes
EBVstd = EBV . imations.
σ
Standardized milk, fat, and protein yield EBV were
averaged across lactations 1, 2, and 3 to give one official
1139
EBV per yield trait. EBV for somatic cell score were
combined differently because mastitis problems were
economically more important in second lactations, so
that the combined EBV (2) was
ETA = 0.25 ETA1st + 0.65 ETA2nd + 0.10 ETA3rd.
Similarly, persistency of milk yield was deemed more
important in first lactations so that the combined EBV
for persistency was
ETA = 0.50 ETA1st + 0.25 ETA2nd + 0.25 ETA3rd.
These combining procedures are subject to change in
the future as further economic studies are conducted.
All EBV and ETA information is available on the
World Wide Web from Canadian Dairy Network (1). An
example of the EBV information available on four dairy
bulls from CTDM is given in Table 2. The production
trait EBV have been standardized to the same SD
within lactations so that they can be compared across
lactations. Bull A has EBV for yield traits that are fairly
similar for each lactation, indicating that its daughters
maintain the same level of genetic superiority for yield
traits as they mature. The daughters of Bull B, how-
ever, show a marked decline in superiority from first
to third lactation, indicating a bull that may not be as
profitable as the first. Thus, by publishing all 12 EBV
plus three EBV for persistency of milk yield, more infor-
mation can be gained by a dairy producer than from
combined evaluations. Given that considerable effort
has been made to calculate 36 genetic solutions per
animal with the CTDM, combining information across
lactations is a transition step. Indeed, as dairy produc-
ers become aware of the information as presented in
Table 2, then the more they desire to see it, and plans
to move to this type of expression are in progress for
next year.
Reliabilities
Reliability of EBV must be approximated because a
generalized inverse of the mixed model equations for
the CTDM cannot be computed directly. In the future,
Canada expects that fat and protein yields may not be
available for all test-day yields, and in the past records
of protein yields were not always collected. Therefore,
the reliability of all yield traits should be based on the
trait with the most limited information, i.e., protein
yield. Thus, reliabilities should be conservative approx-
The approximation procedure is similar to that de-
scribed by Graser and Tier (3). Recall that G is the
additive genetic covariance matrix of order 36. Let Hk
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
1140 SCHAEFFER ET AL.

Table 2. Example information available on bulls from the Canadian Test-Day Model.

EBV EBV EBV ETA

Bull Lact. TD Milk Fat Protein ETA Pers.5
ID Herds Daus.1 (no.) recs Rel2 (kg) (kg) (kg) SCS4 %
A 26 35 384 80 2314 46 76 3.02 64
1 279 2164 42 77 2.79 72
2 105 2490 50 78 3.09 57
3 0 2289 47 74 3.11 53
B 55 72 666 87 1768 70 64 3.19 63
1 515 2144 93 78 3.23 69
2 151 1659 62 59 3.16 58
3 0 1500 56 55 3.27 55
C 56 90 2386 90 2288 54 77 3.30 69
1 1196 2471 55 84 3.43 79
2 813 2538 63 85 3.24 59
3 377 1857 43 62 3.42 59
D 57 64 999 88 1603 42 52 2.75 66
1 434 1408 34 49 3.02 75
2 321 1699 50 55 2.68 58
3 244 1702 41 53 2.58 55
1
Daus. = Daughters.
2
Rel = Reliability percentage.
3
EBV = Estimated breeding value.
4
ETA SCS = Estimated transmitting ability somatic cell scores.
5
Pers. = Persistency evaluation in percentage.

be the diagonal block of the mixed model equations for are scalars representing the averaging of the three lac-
animal k, which includes information from each test- tations. An effective number of progeny, ne can be de-
day record on the animal, and refer to it as Zk′ R−1 Zk, rived as
plus G−1. Absorption of the permanent environmental
effect of the animal is necessary, hence calculate ne = λ [( ) ]
gr
cr
−1,

Ck = (Hk − (Zk′ R−1Zk)(Zk′ R−1Zk + P−1)−1(Z′ kR−1Zk)) −1.

Now extract submatrices of Ck and of G of order 9
by 9 corresponding to the elements just dealing with
protein yield regression coefficients, and let them be
denoted by Gp and Ckp. Form the following matrix
where λ = (4 − h2)/h2. This quantity is calculated for
every animal with test-day records, and for ancestor
animals this quantity starts at zero. M and f′ are de-
fined differently for somatic cell score and persistency.
Next a selection index is constructed based on the
number of effective maternal and paternal half-sibs and
on number of effective progeny of the animal in ques-

( )
M=
tion. The accuracy from this index is used as the reliabil-
305 46,665 19.5042 0 0 0 0 0 0
ity. In a single-trait situation, the reliabilities from this
0 0 0 305 46,665 19.5042 0 0 0 ,
approximation procedure were highly correlated with
0 0 0 0 0 0 305 46,665 19.5042
the diagonals of the inverse of the mixed model equa-
tions (12). For the CTDM the approximate reliabilities
then calculate Cr = MCkpM′ and Gr = MGpM′, which were compared to the exact reliabilities on a small data
will be of order 3 by 3. Finally, let set, and were found to agree closely (9). This approxima-
tion takes into account the number of test-day records
f′ = (0.33333 0.33333 0.33333), per individual per lactation, the actual days in milk
when they were recorded, the accuracy of each test-day
then record, and relatives’ information through the relation-
ship matrix.
gr = f′Grf and
Economic Indexes
Canada has the Total Economic Value index (TEV)
cr = f′Crf for commercial producers which includes production,

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000

 SYMPOSIUM: TEST-DAY MODELS
longevity, and mastitis subindices, and the more popu-
lar Lifetime Profit Index (LPI) which includes only pro-
duction and conformation subindices. Research is
needed on modifying the production subindex in both
TEV and LPI to utilize three separate EBV per yield
trait and persistency evaluations. Given that the CTDM
can distinguish among bulls on their persistency both
within and across lactations, these traits may be more
highly related to longevity than any combined EBV.
The test-day record database should also be able to
provide culling rates on bulls’ daughters that were not
readily available in the past.
EXPERIENCES
Publication Criteria
The publication criteria for bulls do not change
greatly between an animal model and CTDM. Bulls
should have 20 daughters with one test-day record be-
yond 90 DIM, and these daughters should appear in at
least 10 herds. A minimum reliability of 60% on protein
yield EBV is also required. For breeds other than Hol-
stein, the minimums are 10 daughters with tests after
90 DIM in at least five herds.
The publication standards for cows has changed con-
siderably. A cow must have at least two supervised test-
day records with protein yields, and one of those must
be after 60 DIM. Of the last two test-day records, at
least one must be supervised, and the average interval
between test-day records in the current lactation must
not be greater than 50 d. A minimum reliability of 30%
on protein yield EBV is also required. These are the
requirements for official publication of cows on top lists
or official pedigrees in a breed, but all cows receive
EBV, and these are delivered to the herd owners for
their own management usage. Breed associations may
have additional requirements for their awards pro-
grams. These criteria can readily be applied to cows
that change herds or that are imported into Canada.
Under these standards, a cow could appear on an official
list in February at say 75 DIM, followed by three unsu-
pervised tests such that the cow was not publishable
in May, followed by one or two supervised tests so that
she was publishable again in August. Another cow
might have unsupervised test-day records throughout
lactations 1 and 2, but in third lactation its records are
supervised, and now its EBV are publishable because
the standards just are applied to the current lactation.
A goal of the CTDM was to allow milk recording to
have greater flexibility in the types of recording
schemes that it offered to producers. Many producers
found the monthly supervised scheme too costly and
invasive of their time. At the same time, many breeders
did not want to see official lists that included cows
1141
that were not supervised at least partially during the
lactation. Therefore, the possibility exists for a cow to
have 10 unsupervised test-day records with a reliability
greater than 30% and a very high EBV, but which would
not appear on an official publication list. Producers can
decide which recording scheme fits their budget and
if having their cows appear on a publishable list is
important, they will have to ask for supervised testing
at least every other test day. At present the recording
schemes chosen by herd owners has not changed much
due to the CTDM. A new nationwide recording scheme
is being adopted slowly.
As mentioned previously, only test-day records from
cows first calving since 1988 (later in some regions)
and only test-day records from the first three lactations
were used in the CTDM. Consequently, the CTDM ex-
cluded cows that completed their third lactation before
1990 and that were still alive and producing milk. These
cows could possibly have daughters and would therefore
receive EBV for all traits. Because they do not have
any test-day records, supervised or unsupervised, they
would not be eligible for official publication lists, but
they may have appeared on official lists prior to CTDM,
and may be worthy as bull dams. Therefore, a ‘blending’
algorithm was developed to merge their EBV based
on a lactation model and on completed 305-d lactation
records with calving dates up to March 1, 1994, with
their test-day model EBV. If they were officially listed
previously, then they would continue to appear on offi-
cial lists until they were no longer alive. These cows
should eventually disappear, and the blending can be
terminated.
Comparison to Previous Lactation Model
Several test runs of the CTDM were made prior to
February 1999 to prepare the industry for the change
and to become comfortable with the changes in rankings
of animals that would inevitably occur. In November
1998, a comparison between the test-day model com-
bined EBV and the official 305-d lactation EBV found
correlations between the two to be 0.97 (0.90 for somatic
cell score), based on over 4200 Holstein bulls. The re-
sults for all breeds are shown in Table 3. Correlations
with the separate lactation EBV from the test-day
model with the November official EBV were slightly
lower than 0.97 as seen in Table 4. These results plus
estimated genetic correlations between lactations of
0.76 and the fact that shapes of lactation daily yields
are very different between lactations indicates that the
three lactations are distinctly different traits.
The maximum increases and maximum decreases in
combined protein EBV between the November official
305-d lactation EBVs and the November 1998 test-day
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
1142 SCHAEFFER ET AL.

Table 3. Correlations between lactation model EBV1 and Canadian Test-Day Model EBV for bulls only
from November 1998.
Breed No. Milk EBV Fat EBV Protein EBV No. SCS

Holstein 4293 0.970 0.971 0.972 4186 0.903

Ayrshire 328 0.934 0.929 0.925 308 0.893
Jersey 196 0.988 0.986 0.983 189 0.915
Brown Swiss 84 0.882 0.915 0.892 55 0.845
Guernsey 58 0.945 0.956 0.956 53 0.806
Canadienne 21 0.946 0.906 0.904 ... ...
M. Shorthorn 13 0.902 0.920 0.914 ... ...
1
ETA = Estimated breeding value.

model EBV are given in Table 5. Thus, the change from
a lactation model to a test-day model could be very
dramatic for some bulls. Although average changes in
EBV and correlations indicated good agreement be-
tween models, the listings of the top bulls showed more
significant re-rankings. In a May 1998 test run, for
example, six new Holstein bulls appeared in the top 10,
22 in the top 50, and 31 in the top 100 compared to the
results from the official lactational model. Unfortu-
nately, these are the bulls in which producers are pri-
marily interested, and which are marketed in other
countries. Changes in the rankings of these bulls raise
more suspicions about a genetic evaluation system than
any shifts in rankings below the top 100. Good explana-
tions and detailed information about these bulls are
necessary to defuse the suspicions. While the general
overall results were reassuring, the true test of confi-
dence by producers is based on the top bulls and good
answers are needed on these bulls.
for each lactation and combined EBV are shown in Ta-
ble 6. Bulls with only first lactation daughters in 1997
had greater change in their combined EBV and lower
correlation with their combined EBV in February 1999.
Bulls with daughters in third lactation in February
1997 showed the smallest changes in EBV and highest
correlations with February 1999 results. Canada makes
four official runs per year for production traits, and
therefore, quarterly runs between February 1997 and
February 1999 are currently being simulated to study
expected changes between runs.
The changes shown in Table 6 were smaller than
those in Table 5. Thus, the change in models resulted
in greater changes in EBV than the addition of two
years of test day records within the test day model. The
CTDM is expected to yield more stable EBV than the
lactation model over time.
International Considerations

Comparison Between CTDM Runs Canada is heavily involved in the exportation of bull
semen throughout the world, and has participated in
To study the stability that could be expected in the Interbull activities since the early 1980s. Canada had
CTDM between runs, a dataset based on test-day rec- to submit EBV from a test run (May 1998) of the CTDM
ords up to February 1997 was analyzed and compared and to provide validity tests on estimates of genetic
to the official February 1999 results. Bulls with daugh- trend to be included in the February 1999 Interbull
ter TD records between 200 and 305 DIM in each lacta- evaluation of bulls. Interbull did a test run in Septem-
tion were separated according to the lactation number ber 1998 involving 22 countries and 6 breeds. Four
of their oldest 20 daughters in February 1997. The aver- countries had made substantive changes to their ge-
age changes, range of changes, and correlation between netic evaluation procedures, including Canada’s switch
February 1997 and February 1999 in protein yield EBV to the test-day model. Canada supplied 3884 bull EBV
for the Holstein breed compared to 4685 that were sent
in August from the lactation model. Interbull re-esti-
Table 4. Correlations between lactation model EBV and Canadian mated the sire genetic standard deviations for each trait
Test-Day Model EBV for separate lactations from November 1998
for 4293 Holstein bulls only. as well as the genetic correlations among countries.
Interbull expected, in September, that Canada would
Lactation
change officially to the test day model in February 1999.
Trait 1 2 3 Combined1 Genetic correlations generally decreased, but not
Milk EBV 0.948 0.940 0.914 0.970 more than 0.03 for any trait or breed. Genetic correla-
Fat EBV 0.952 0.939 0.915 0.971 tions between Canada and Germany, however, actually
Protein EBV 0.952 0.948 0.920 0.972 increased because Germany also uses a test-day model,
1
Combined = ¹⁄₃(Lactation 1 + Lactation 2 + Lactation 3). although a fixed regression model. The number of Cana-

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000

 SYMPOSIUM: TEST-DAY MODELS 1143
Table 5. Maximum increase and decreases between Canadian Test-Day Model EBV and lactation model
EBV for protein yield from November 1998 and number of bulls with absolute changes greater than 10 or
15 kg.
Max. Max. No. with No. with
Breed No. decrease increase > 10 kg > 15 kg
Holstein 4293 −23 34 328 71
Ayrshire 328 −16 28 28 13
Jersey 196 −15 17 11 2
Brown Swiss 84 −18 21 25 10
Guernsey 58 −5 18 8 1
Canadienne 21 −6 11 1 0
M. Shorthorn 13 −15 7 1 0

dian bulls in the top 100 lists (expressed on the Cana-
dian scale) decreased in comparison with the August
1998 Interbull run. Canada had about 800 fewer bulls
from the CTDM for the test run, and in general, many
of the older bulls had fewer daughters than they used
to have under the lactation model because test-day rec-
ords were available for cows first calving from 1988
only. For example, a bull could have dropped from
10,000 daughters to only 10 daughters in the test-day
model. This same bull would still have many daughters
in other countries and consequently the Interbull evalu-
ation would be more strongly influenced by the daugh-
ters in other countries than by those in Canada. The
same bull would have many sons in Canada, whose
Interbull evaluations might also be affected. If second
country proofs are deemed to be biased, then this bull’s
Interbull evaluation and those of his sons could be bi-
ased. The answer to this problem is not clear, but the
problem presents a significant marketing challenge for
Canadian exporters.
Because Canada plans to have separate EBV for each
lactation as official proofs in 2000, from the CTDM,
then Interbull will have to determine how to analyze
three protein yield EBV from one country rather than
just one. The three protein yield EBV would be highly
correlated, so that each protein yield EBV could not be
considered as EBV based on a group of independent
daughters, as they would be between countries. A multi-
ple-trait extension to current Interbull analyses is tech-
nically feasible, but making the appropriate changes
and testing programs by September 1999 is likely not
possible. Canada may not be able to participate in fu-
ture international evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS
Changing genetic evaluation methods from a 305-d
lactation model to a test-day model has many ramifica-
tions that need to be considered. Producer acceptance
is a key issue that will require good extension efforts.
International acceptance also requires extension and
coordination with Interbull. The additional benefits
that can be obtained from a test-day model, such as
persistency within and across lactations, better ac-

Table 6. Differences between Canadian Test-Day Model EBV from February 1997 with February 1999 for
Holstein bulls only.
Lactation
Group of
Bulls1 No. 1 2 3 Combined2

1st 105 Ave. Diff. −2.78 −4.09 0.13 −2.26

Max. Decrease −12 −23 −28 −18
Max. Increase 7 21 21 14
Correlation 0.980 0.901 0.863 0.944
2nd 286 Ave. Diff. 0.26 −2.53 −2.66 −1.65
Max. Decrease −9 −20 −28 −13
Max. Increase 14 13 17 11
Correlation 0.994 0.980 0.927 0.982
3rd 1682 Ave. Diff. 1.60 1.30 1.13 1.34
Max. Decrease −12 −13 −15 −10
Max. Increase 19 22 17 15
Correlation 0.996 0.994 0.989 0.995
1
Group 1 includes bulls whose daughters have TD records only in lactation 1, Group 2 includes bulls
whose daughters have TD records in lactations 1 and 2, and Group 3 includes bulls whose daughters have
TD in all three lactations.
2
Combined = ¹⁄₃(Lactation 1 + Lactation 2 + Lactation 3).

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000

1144 SCHAEFFER ET AL.
counting for herd-test date environments, movement of
cows between herds, more flexibility in milk recording
schemes, and more accurate genetic selection of bulls
and cows outweigh the short-term disadvantages. The
extra computing was not a problem for Canada, but
could be too costly for countries with larger dairy cattle
populations. New computing algorithms are being ex-
plored that would allow more random regression covari-
ates per trait and possibly more lactations to be in-
cluded. Further efforts are needed to determine the best
ways of extracting the full potential from a test-day
model analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support from the Ontario Ministry of Agri-
culture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cattle Breeding
Research Council of Canada, and the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council are gratefully ac-
knowledged.
REFERENCES
1 Canadian Dairy Network website. 1999. http://www.cdn.ca/.
2 Dekkers, J.C.M., and J. P. Gibson. 1998. Applying breeding objec-
tives to dairy cattle improvement. J. Dairy Sci. 81:19–35.
3 Graser, H. U., and B. Tier. 1997. Applying the concept of number of
effective progeny to approximate accuracies of predictions derived
from multiple trait analysis. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Anim. Breed.
Genet. 12:547–551.
4 Jamrozik, J., G. J. Kistemaker, J.C.M. Dekkers, and L. R. Schaef-
fer. 1997. Comparison of possible covariates for use in a random
regression model for analyses of test day yields. J. Dairy Sci.
80:2550–2556.
5 Jamrozik, J., and L. R. Schaeffer. 1997. Estimates of genetic
parameters for a test day model with random regressions for
production of first lactation Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 80:762–770.
6 Jamrozik, J., and L. R. Schaeffer. 1999. Comparison of two com-
puting algorithms for solving mixed model equations for multiple
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 83, No. 5, 2000
trait random regression test-day models. Livest. Prod. Sci. (in
press.)
7 Jamrozik, J., L. R. Schaeffer, and J.C.M. Dekkers. 1997. Genetic
evaluation of dairy cattle using test day yields and random regres-
sion model. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1217–1226.
8 Jamrozik, J., L. R. Schaeffer, and F. Grignola. 1998. Genetic
parameters for production traits and somatic cell score of Cana-
dian Holsteins with multiple trait random regression model.
6WCGALP. 23:303–306.
9 Jamrozik, J., L. R. Schaeffer, and G. B. Jansen. Approximate
accuracies of prediction from random regression models. Livest.
Prod. Sci. In press.
10 Jamrozik, J., L. R. Schaeffer, Z. Liu, and G. Jansen. 1997. Multiple
trait random regression test day model for production traits. In-
terbull Bull. No. 16:43.
11 Kistemaker, G. 1997. The comparison of random regression test-
day models and a 305-day model for evaluation of milk yield in
dairy cattle. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Guelph.
12 Koots, K. R., L. R. Schaeffer, and G. B. Jansen. 1997. Approximate
accuracy of genetic evaluation under an animal model. J. Dairy
Sci. 80(Suppl 1):226. (Abstr.)
13 Ptak, E., H. S. Horst, and L. R. Schaeffer. 1993. Interaction of
age and month of calving with year for Ontario Holstein produc-
tion traits. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3792–3798.
14 Ptak, E., and L. R. Schaeffer. 1993. Use of test-day yields for
genetic evaluation of dairy sires and cows. Livest. Prod. Sci.
34:23–34.
15 Reents, R., J.C.M. Dekkers, and L. R. Schaeffer. 1995. Genetic
evaluation for somatic cell score with a test-day model for multiple
lactations. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2858.
16 Reents, R., J. Jamrozik, L. R. Schaeffer, and J.C.M. Dekkers.
1995. Estimation of genetic parameters for test-day records of
somatic cell score. J. Dairy Sci. 78:2847.
17 Schaeffer, L. R. 1997. Subject: random regressions. http://chuck.
agsci.colostate.edu/wais/logs/agd 869258263.html. Accessed Nov.
18, 1997.
18 Schaeffer, L. R., and J.C.M. Dekkers. 1994. Random regressions
in animal models for test-day production in dairy cattle. Proc.
5th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Guelph 18:443.
19 Schaeffer, L. R., J. Jamrozik, R. Van Dorp, D. F. Kelton, and D.
W. Lazenby. 1999. Estimating daily yields of cows from different
milking schemes. Livest. Prod. Sci. (in press.)
20 Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Adjustment of test-day milk, fat and pro-
tein yields for age, season and stage of lactation. Livest. Prod.
Sci. 16:335.