1 / 13

Update on All-breed Model, Fertility, Genomics

Update on All-breed Model, Fertility, Genomics. Test Day Model - Potential Benefits. Increased accuracy of evaluations Account for lactation curve differences Account for genetic differences by parity Evaluate persistency, rate of maturity Include milk-only records if multi-trait

gribble
Download Presentation

Update on All-breed Model, Fertility, Genomics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on All-breed Model, Fertility, Genomics

  2. Test Day Model - Potential Benefits • Increased accuracy of evaluations • Account for lactation curve differences • Account for genetic differences by parity • Evaluate persistency, rate of maturity • Include milk-only records if multi-trait • Possible earlier selection of bull dams • Promote as state-of-the-art system • Management effects more accurate • Could provide to DRPCs and herd owners

  3. All-Breed PTAs – March Test Run • Genetic correlations mostly same • JE increase .02 for PL and .01 for SCS • BS decrease .01 for fat and SCS • AY increase .01 for PL • USA bulls in top 100 differ little • Numbers are averages across all scales • JE improve for SCS, fat (26 vs 25) • JE decline for milk, protein (59 vs 62) • BS decline for yield (10 vs 15) • HO improve for yield (17 vs 16)

  4. Jersey and Swiss PTAs • Base cow means changed little • Base cow SD changed little • Top bulls for protein dropped by ~9 lbs, bottom bulls dropped by ~4 lbs in both breeds • Unknown parent grouping, heterosis may be responsible

  5. All-breed Trend Validation • 85 tests, 6 were significant (.05) • None significant for milk or SCS • 1 of 15 for fat and for protein • 2 of 15 for PL and for DPR • Increase in DPR repeatability made trend more negative, helped tests

  6. DPR Results – March Test Run Holstein genetic correlations March model also included an increase in repeatability

  7. DPR - Top 100 bullsBorn in last 12 years, March 2007 test run

  8. Bulls to Genotype60,000 SNP Project • Choose HO bulls with semen at BFGL • Genotype 1777 proven bulls • Born 1994-1996 with >75% REL NM • Plus 172 ancestor bulls born 1952-1993 • Predict 500 bulls sampled later • Born 2001 with >75% REL NM • Include other bulls in gap years? • Born 1997-2000 (proven) or >2002 (waiting)

  9. Birth Years of Bulls to Genotype Data cutoff

  10. Contributors of DNA500 CDDR bulls to predict, born in 2001

  11. Potential ResultsSimulation of 10,000 SNPs • QTLs normally distributed, n = 100 • Reliability vs parent average REL • 58% vs 36% if QTLs are between SNPs • 71% vs 36% if QTLs are located at SNPs • Higher REL if major loci and Bayesian methods used, lower if many loci (>100) affect trait

  12. Alleles Shared by Sibs

  13. Reliability from Full SibsMarker and QTL positions identical, sib REL = 99% A = traditional additive relationships, G = genomic relationships

More Related