Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reliable genomic evaluations across breeds and borders Sander de Roos CRV, the Netherlands.
Advertisements

Coming soon to a genetics lab near you! NBCEC Beef Genetic Workshop Clay Center, NE March 27, 2004 Marker adjusted EPDs.
Relationship of somatic cell score with fertility measures Poster 1390 ADSA 2001, Indiannapolis R. H. Miller 1, J. S. Clay 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal.
Genomic imputation and evaluation using 1074 high density Holstein genotypes P. M. VanRaden 1, D. J. Null 1 *, G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, E.E.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2008 Genetic trends.
Use of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) in Dairy Sire Selection Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.
Genetic Selection Tools in the Genomics Era Curt Van Tassell, PhD Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory & Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville,
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansCroatian.
J. B. Cole 1, P. D. Miller 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2 Department.
Wiggans, 2013RL meeting, Aug. 15 (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans, Acting Research Leader Bldg. 005, Room 306, BARC-West (main office);
BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.
ADSA 2002 (HDN-P1) 2002 Comparison of occurrence and yields of daughters of progeny-test and proven bulls in artificial insemination and natural- service.
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.
2007 Jana L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA
Reproductive Management of Dairy Cows with Particular Reference to Organic Systems Michael G Diskin & Frank Kelly Animal Production Research Centre,
WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
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,
December 2014 Proof Changes
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.
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.
1 Application of Molecular Technologies in Beef Production Dan W. Moser, Ph.D Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.
Performance of Holsteins that originated from embryo transfer or twin births H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright* and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,
2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.
Norway (1) 2005 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,
Bovine Genomics The Technology and its Applications Gerrit Kistemaker Chief Geneticist, Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) Many slides were created by.
AFGC Convention 2004 (1) 2004 Possibilities for Improving Dairy Cattle Performance Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA San Antonio.
2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Overview.
2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.
Genetic Evaluation of Lactation Persistency Estimated by Best Prediction for Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, and Milking Shorthorn Dairy Cattle J. B.
2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2006.
 Objective 7.03: Apply the Use of Production Records.
Why is it important for Geno to establish research collaboration with the U.S? Sverre Bjørnstad Sverre Bjørnstad.
2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (1) Is There a Need for Different Genetics in Dairy Grazing Systems? H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L.
2006 H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
XX International Grassland Conference 2005 (1) 2005 Genetic Alternatives for Dairy Producers who Practise Grazing H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L. Powell.
7 th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod Selection of dairy cattle for lifetime profit Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory.
Norman, 2014ICAR / Interbull annual meeting, Berlin, Germany, May 20, 2014 (1) Dr. H. Duane Norman Interim Administrator Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding.
Paul VanRaden and John Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Planned Changes to Models and Trait Definitions.
H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright, and R.H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA
WiggansARS Big Data Computing Workshop (1) 2013 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
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.
ADSA 2002 (RHM-P1) 2002 R.H. Miller, ,1 H.D. Norman, 1 and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Multibreed Genomic Evaluation Using Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson* 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 Department of Dairy Science Virginia Polytechnic and State.
H.D. Norman* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and M.T. Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 New.
H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Dairy Cattle Reproductive.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Select Sires‘ Holstein.
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.
Fundamentals of the Eurostar evaluations
Ø Novel approaches for linkage mapping in dairy cattle
Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity
A National Sire Fertility Index
Where AIPL Fits In Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the main research arm of USDA (8,000 employees with 2,000 scientists at >100 locations) Beltsville.
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.
Effectiveness of genetic evaluations in predicting daughter performance in individual herds H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1*, C. D. Dechow 2 and R. C.
Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy
Wading through the confusion of EPDs and genomics
Presentation transcript:

Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil

Introduction How selection is done in Brazil –Dairy cattle. –Beef cattle. Result of these selection –Improved production. Problems caused by phenotypic selection –Negative effect on others traits –Results below expected

Potential GxE interaction can be quantified by considering as different traits the dairy performance of relatives in each country. Small difference between daughter responses and sire breeding in sub-tropical regions. Actual gain depends on the genetic value of the candidate germ plasm and its performance in production environments. To evaluate germ plasm importation options, quantifying potential interactions between US sires and Brazilian herd environments is essential.

With the milk production increasing, the quality of health and reproduction are declining. The infertility has a large impact on competitiveness and the sustainability of the dairy cattle industry. Studies designed for identification of QTL are based on crosses of genetically distinct breeds or inbred lines.

Objectives Help to increase herd productivity: –Selecting bulls that have higher genetic values in the target environment. Make this selection viable: –Show producers how much better is this selection, and make it popular and cheaper.

Increase profits –Identify the investment and the additional productivity. Combine traits that are negatively correlated: –Milk yield and protein concentration. –Milk yield and reproduction.

Materials and Methods Animals in different environments Ranking these animals according to the records –Records of milk yield, quantity of protein, fertility. Identify the QTLs for specific traits –Compare information inside the environment

Ranking the QTLs –Determine which QTL has the greatest effect for each trait in each environment. Evaluate the most important QTLs, and their effects, between different environments

Identify the QTLs with similar (favorable) effects in both environments. –These QTLs should be useful in both environments. Identify the QTLs that differentially affect performance in the target environment. –These QTLs should be selected only for bull that would be used in specific environments –They are responsible for increased production only in those specific conditions (environments).

Materials and Methods from M. S. Ashwell’ paper Resource Population. –Semen from 10 Holstein families was selected from progeny- tested animals. –Two research groups conducted independent genome scans. Genotyping. –For each individual genome scan, microsatellite markers were selected at approximately 20-cM intervals from published bovines maps.

Phenotypic Data. –Data for milk yield and composition, SCS and productivity life (PL) collected were processed in genetic evaluation procedure. –The female fertility trait is new genetic evaluation. –Pregnancy status is determined from the date of last breeding and is verified using the next calving date. Statistical Analysis. –Data from a total of eight traits were analyzed using a regression approach originally described in –Data included daughter deviations for milk, fat, and protein yield, fat and protein percentage, SCS, and PL, weighted by their respective reliabilities.