Validation of €uro-Star Replacement Index.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
British Limousin Cattle Society Alison Glasgow. What’s been going on? Database development ~ Registrations & Perf. Recording Addition of Online Census.
Advertisements

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansAlta Genetics.
Level II Agricultural Business Operations. What is the objective... ?  To produce a more efficient dairy animal  Milk producers want healthy cows, acceptable.
Colorado Agriscience Curriculum
BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.
How Genomics is changing Business and Services of Associations Dr. Josef Pott, Weser-Ems-Union eG, Germany.
But who will be the next GREAT one?. USA Bull Proofs * Bulls are ranked based upon their DAUGHTER’S (progeny) production and physical characteristics.
Click each slide to move forward through the presentation.
Changes in the use of young bulls K. M. Olson* 1, J. L. Hutchison 2, P. M. VanRaden 2, and H. D. Norman 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,
Impacts of inclusion of foreign data in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle K. M. Olson 1, P. M. VanRaden 2, D. J. Null 2, and M. E. Tooker 2 1 National.
Wiggans, 2013Japanese Genomics Tour (1) Dr. George R. WiggansDr. H. Duane Norman Acting Research LeaderInterim Administrator Animal Improvement Programs.
Van Eenennaam 11/17/2010 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology.
Using EPDs in Selection Stolen and edited by: Brandon Freel and Daniel Powell Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.
EBLEX Better Returns Programme Material produced for EBLEX Beef BRP by Signet Breeding Services Genetic Improvement of Beef Cattle in the UK.
Bovine Genomics The Technology and its Applications Gerrit Kistemaker Chief Geneticist, Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) Many slides were created by.
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education “Economic value of genomic information: Sire and commercial heifer selection" Van Eenennaam 10/19/2011.
T. A. Cooper and G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Council.
Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Associate Professor/Cow-Calf Extension Specialist Kansas State University
Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,
 Objective 7.03: Apply the Use of Production Records.
G.R. Wiggans* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
2015 – 2020 Beef Data Genomics Programme October/November 2015 Information Sessions.
Beef Data & Genomics Programme Information Meetings 2015 Teagasc Beef Specialists.
J. B. Cole *, G. R. Wiggans, P. M. VanRaden, and R. H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
April 2010 (1) Prediction of Breed Composition & Multibreed Genomic Evaluations K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.
Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.
Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.
Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.
2006 GEORGE R. WIGGANS Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, Maryland ,
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Select Sires‘ Holstein.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2011 National Breeders.
Jack Ward American Hereford Association October 31, 2012.
G.R. Wiggans, T. A. Cooper* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
CRI – Spanish update (1) 2010 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4, Paul VanRaden 1, Curt.
Using EPDs in Selection Edited by: Jessica Hawley & Brandon Freel Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle Dr. Fred Rayfield Livestock Specialist Georgia Agricultural Education To accompany lesson.
Bull Selection: Beef Kay Farmer Madison County High School edited by Billy Moss and Rachel Postin July 2001.
My vision for dairy genomics
Beef Genomics and Data Programme
Cattle Breeding in Ireland.
ICBF Beef & Dairy Industry Meeting. 22 May 2015.
Fundamentals of the Eurostar evaluations
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle
Using EPDs in Selection
Predicted economic and greenhouse gas benefits from using improved maternal genetics in UK beef cattle Cheryl Quinton1, Peter Amer1, Tom Kirk1 & Eileen.
Key Trends from National Suckler Herd.
Test Day Model - Update.
S. Naderi1, R. R. Mota1, S. Vanderick1, N. Gengler1
Drought and fodder crisis What cows should I cull?
Using EPDs in Selection
Genomic Evaluations.
Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity
A National Sire Fertility Index
Genomic Selection in Dairy Cattle
Predictions of Breed Composition Using Holsteins, Jersey, and Brown Swiss Genotypes K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.
Can you believe those genomic evaluations for young bulls?
History of Selection From Phenotypes to Economic Indexes
Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.
Alternatives for evaluating daughter performance of progeny-test bulls between official evaluations Abstr. #10.
Expected Progeny Differences
Expected Progeny Difference EPD
Relationship of gestation length to stillbirth
How to understand and use dairy goat performance data
Japie van der Westhuizen & Colleagues SA Stud Book
Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy
Presentation transcript:

Validation of €uro-Star Replacement Index.

Key Questions? Does the Replacement Index work? If I bought/selected a breeding heifer based on her parent average replacement index, how would she subsequently perform relative to an average animal? Will genomics help improve the accuracy of the €uro-Star Replacement Index. What additional value can the genotype data bring to the accuracy of purchase/selection, above information on parent average and owne performance data?

Replacement Index. Emphasis: Cow traits 71% Calf traits 29% Trait Goal Relative wt Calving Less 16% Feed Intake 18% Carcass wt (for age) More 21% Maternal milk Female fertility 23% Docility 4% Emphasis: Cow traits 71% Calf traits 29%

Data + Analysis. 162,363 females that were born in 2011 and subsequently entered the suckler herd as female replacements. Analysis of average performance of these females. Compared performance of 5 star females, relative to this average. Replacement Index roofs taken from; December 2012 (parent average proof, “new” replacement index recalculated). April 16 (parent average + own performance data) June 16 genomic (parent average + own performance data + animals genotype).

Proofs for animals could change by €100 with more data.

Change in Stars Dec 12 => Apr 16

Extent of changes are less with genomics.

Change in Stars Apr 16 => June 16

Summary The €uro-Star Replacement Index is an accurate predictor of future performance. Use of genomics will add significantly to the accuracy of this prediction in the future. Proofs for individual animals will continue to change. This is exactly in line with expectations, based on reliability. Analysis supports moving to official genomic evaluations, from August 2016.

BDGP - Key Time-lines. Month Key Time-lines. Ongoing 2015 payment upon verification of compliance. May Finalisation of list of herds involved in the BDGP scheme. Tags sent to Autumn calving herds in BDGP (some 2.5k herds). July Tags sent to Spring calving herds in BDGP (remaining 22.5k herds). August Release of official genomic evaluations for beef AI sires. September Updated BDGP reports with new beef genomic evaluations sent to scheme participants. October Completion of BDGP Training by all scheme participants. Completion of initial Carbon Navigator herd assessment by all scheme participants. December Commencement of 2016 payments. All months Completion of relevant BDGP data recording forms, as requested by DAFM.

G€N€ IR€ AI Sires (n=73)

Beef Genomic Evaluations.

Update since last meeting Survival trait given priority Solution found based on a 2 step process similar to dairy genomic evaluations called SNP BLUP Involves developing a “genomic key” based on informative breeding values Given the progress with survival the same process was then applied to all 16 traits in the Replacement index

Update since last meeting 2 New phenotypic data and pedigree up to middle of May 16 512k genotyped animals in database at start of May included of which 418k were beef genotypes Evaluations were loaded to database last week Test proofs for AI sires circulated

Process Run single trait analysis for each trait (16 traits) Removes any bias in ebvs derived from predictor traits Use these uni-variate ebvs to derive a “genomic key” for each trait Apply that genomic key to all genotyped animals Use a blending approach to combine with the non genomic evaluations

Training datasets by trait Criteria Genotyped animals with non genomic reliability > heritability from a single trait evaluation

Results Run single trait analysis for each trait (16 traits) Removes any ebvs derived from predictor traits Using these univariate ebvs to derive a “genomic key” for each trait Apply that genomic key to all genotyped animals Use a blending approach to combine with the non genomic evaluations

All genotyped AI sires >90% rel official (247)

All genotyped AI sires <50% rel official (422)

Experience from dairy Average PTA (reliabilities in brackets) N=244 PA   PA Official genomic Daughter Milk 197 (41) 133 (63) 129 (94) Fat 13 11.2 11 Fat % 0.106 0.119 0.12 Prot 10.5 8.5 8.2 Prot % 0.074 0.08 0.078 CI -3.48 (31) -4.2 (49) -5.1 (81) SU 1.9 2.2 1.99 CD 3.05 (37) 1.9 (50) 2.7 (90) Gest -2.0 -2.35 -2.73 Carcase Weight -1.8 -3.5 -2.4 Carcase Conf -0.63 -0.71 -0.72

Next Steps. Some young AI bulls not in file, new file to be circulated Investigations necessary for some traits: Mortality increase with genomics cow liveweight increase with genomics Update of new data, pedigree, genotypes Validation of genomics where possible Final set of proofs for end of July meeting