1. Can you believe those genomic evaluations for young bulls?

2. Proven Bulls or Young Bulls?

3. Genotyped Animals (n=6,005) In North America as of April 2008

4. Genotyped Animals (n=19,464) In North America as of December 2008

5. Genotyped Animals (n=29,313) In North America as of June 2009

6. Reliability Test Holstein, Jersey, and Brown Swiss breeds
BSW
Predictor:
Bulls born <2000
4,422
1,149
472
Cows with data
947
212 40
Total
5,369
1,361
512
Predicted:
Bulls born >2000
2,035
388
150
Data from 2004 used to predict independent data from 2009

7. Reliability Gain1 by Breed Yield traits and NM$ of young bullsHO JE BS
Net merit 24 8 9
Milk 26 6 17
Fat 32 11 10
Protein 2 14
Fat % 50 36
Protein % 38 29
1Gain above parent average reliability ~35%

8. Reliability Gain by Breed Health and type traits of young bullsHO JE BS
Productive life 32 7 12
Somatic cell score 23 3 17
Dtr pregnancy rate 28 18
Final score 20 2 5
Udder depth 37 8
Foot angle 25 11 -1
Trait average 29

9. Adoption of Genomic Testing US young bulls with NAAB codes, Apr 2009
Birth Year
Bulls Sampled
Bulls Tested
Genomic Tested %
2008*
649
615 95
2007*
1548
1172 76
2006
1726
1118 65
2005
1677
1217 73
2004
1655
991 60
* counts are incomplete

10. Genomic Tested Bulls Available Apr 2009
Age (yrs)
Reliability
Net Merit
Freddie 4 74
905
Twist 1 68
874
Cassino 69
871 Al
866
ManOMan 5 83
779

11. Young vs. Old Bull Test Genomic PTAs computed from Nov 2004 data
Select top 20 young and old bulls for genomic or traditional NM$
Predict Jan 2009 daughter merit
Remove direct contribution of PA (similar to DYD)
Compare regressions and bias (adjusting for 2005 base change)

12. Net Merit of Top 20 Bulls from 2009 data based on selection in 2004
young
Parent average
$395
Genomic
$516
proven
Traditional
$381
$463

13. Changes in Net Merit means for top 20 bulls (2009 – 2004)
Selection
Change
young
Parent average
-$278
Genomic
-$130
proven
Traditional
-$96
-$30

14. Net Merit regressions Predict 2009 from 2004 data, expected = 1.00
Bulls
Selection
Regression
young
Parent average
0.63
Genomic
0.74
proven
Traditional
0.91
1.10

15. Average regressions across all traits Predict 2009 from 2004 data, expected = 1.00
Bulls
Selection
Regression
young
Parent average
0.85
Genomic
0.92
proven
Traditional
1.03
1.05

16. Genomic vs. Traditional
Examine traditional and genomic trends for two traits:
Net Merit
Protein
Data from February 2009

17. Genomic vs. traditional – protein PTA

18. Genomic vs. traditional – net merit

19. Genomic vs. trad. – protein reliability

20. Genomic vs. trad. – net merit reliability

21. Reliability frequency

22. Conclusions
Almost all new bulls and majority of in-waiting bulls are genotyped
Genomic PTAs have
Less bias than parent averages
Regressions closer to 1.0
Higher correlations with later data
Higher Net Merit for top 20 young bulls than proven bulls from 2004

23. Acknowledgments Genotyping and DNA extraction: Computing: Funding:
USDA Bovine Functional Genomics Lab, U. Missouri, U. Alberta, GeneSeek, Genetics & IVF Institute, Genetic Visions, and Illumina
Computing:
AIPL staff (Leigh Walton, Jay Megonigal)
Funding:
National Research Initiative grants ,
Agriculture Research Service
Holstein, Jersey and Brown Swiss breed associations
Contributors to Cooperative Dairy DNA Repository (CDDR)

24. CDDR Contributors
National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB, Columbia, MO)
ABS Global (DeForest, WI)
Accelerated Genetics (Baraboo, WI)
Alta (Balzac, AB, Canada)
Genex (Shawano, WI)
New Generation Genetics (Fort Atkinson, WI)
Select Sires (Plain City, OH)
Semex Alliance (Guelph, ON, Canada)
Taurus-Service (Mehoopany, PA)