Comparison of single-trait to multi-trait national evaluations for yield, health, and fertility1

Journal of Dairy Science

Volumn 97, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 7952-7962

  VanRaden, P M ^a   Tooker, M E ^a   Wright, J R ^a   Sun, C ^b   Hutchison, J L ^a  

^a AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

^b National Association of Animal Breeders   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal model; Best linear unbiased prediction; Correlated trait; Genetic evaluation

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BOVINE; BREEDING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DAIRYING; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETICS; GENOME; HETEROSIS; LACTATION; MALE; METABOLISM; MILK; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BREEDING; CATTLE; DAIRYING; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENOME; HYBRID VIGOR; LACTATION; MALE; MILK; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHENOTYPE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84918800767     PISSN: 00220302     EISSN: 15253198     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-8489     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aguilar I., Misztal I., Johnson D.L., Legarra A., Tsuruta S., Lawlor T.J. Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93:743-752.
2. Biffani S., Marusi M., Biscarini F., Canavesi F. Developing a genetic evaluation for fertility using angularity and milk yield as correlated traits. Interbull Bull. 2005, 33:63-66.
3. Boichard D., Bonaiti B., Barbat A., Mattalia S. Three methods to validate the estimation of genetic trend for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 1995, 78:431-437.
4. Bonaiti B., Boichard D. Accounting for foreign information in genetic evaluation. Interbull Bull 1995, 11:4.
5. de Jong G. Usage of predictors for fertility in the genetic evaluation, application in the Netherlands. Interbull Bull. 2005, 33:69-73.
6. Fikse W.F., Banos G. Weighting factors of sire daughter information in international genetic evaluations. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 84:1759-1767.
7. Kuhn M.T., Hutchison J.L. Prediction of dairy bull fertility from field data: Use of multiple services and identification and utilization of factors affecting bull fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:2481-2492.
8. Kuhn M.T., Hutchison J.L., Norman H.D. Modeling nuisance variables for prediction of service sire fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:2823-2835.
9. Kuhn M.T., Hutchison J.L., Wiggans G.R. Characterization of Holstein heifer fertility in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89:4907-4920.
10. Liu Z., Jaitner J., Reinhardt F., Pasman E., Rensing S., Reents R. Genetic evaluation of fertility traits of dairy cattle using a multiple-trait animal model. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:4333-4343.
11. Mäntysaari E.A., Strandén I. Use of bivariate EBV-DGV model to combine genomic and conventional breeding value estimations. Comm. 0353 in Proc. 9th World Congr 2010, German Society for Animal Science, Giessen, Germany.
12. Misztal I., Tsuruta S., Strabel T., Auvray B., Druet T., Lee D.H. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). Comm. 28-07 in Proc. 7th World Congr 2002, INRA, Paris, France.
13. Pasman E., Reinhardt F. Feasibility of international genetic evaluation for calving ease and stillbirth in Holstein. Interbull Bull. 2002, 29:49-54.
14. Patry C., Ducrocq V. Accounting for genomic pre-selection in national BLUP evaluations in dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2011, 43:30.
15. Pedersen G.A., Pedersen J., Nielsen U.S., Madsen P. Experiences of blending foreign information in the national genetic evaluation. Interbull Bull. 1999, 22:61-65.
16. Přibyl J., Madsen P., Bauer J., Přibylová J., Šimečková M., Vostrý L., Zavadilová L. Contribution of domestic production records, Interbull estimated breeding values, and single nucleotide polymorphism genetic markers to the single-step genomic evaluation of milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96:1865-1873.
17. Schaeffer L.R., Jamrozik J., Kistemaker G.J., Van Doormaal B.J. Experience with a test day model. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83:1135-1144.
18. Stoop W.M., Eding H., van Pelt M.L., de Haer L.C.M., de Jong G. Using pseudo-observations to combine genomic and conventional data in the Dutch-Flemish national evaluation. Interbull Bull. 2013, 47:106-110.
19. Sun C., Madsen P., Lund M.S., Zhang Y., Nielsen U.S., Su G. Improvement in genetic evaluation of female fertility in dairy cattle using multiple-trait models including milk production traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88:871-878.
20. Tsuruta S., Misztal I., Aguilar I., Lawlor T.J. Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94:4198-4204.
21. VanRaden P.M. Methods to combine estimated breeding values obtained from separate sources. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84(E. Suppl.):E47-E55.
22. VanRaden P.M. Inbreeding adjustments and effect on genetic trend estimates. Interbull Bull. 2005, 33:81-84.
23. VanRaden P.M. Avoiding bias from genomic pre-selection in converting daughter information across countries. Interbull Bull. 2012, 45:29-33.
24. VanRaden P.M., Sanders A.H., Tooker M.E., Miller R.H., Norman H.D., Kuhn M.T., Wiggans G.R. Development of a national genetic evaluation for cow fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87:2285-2292.
25. VanRaden P.M., Tooker M.E., Cole J.B., Wiggans G.R., Megonigal J.H. Genetic evaluations for mixed-breed populations. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90:2434-2441.
26. VanRaden P.M., Wiggans G.R. Derivation, calculation, and use of national animal model information. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74:2737-2746.
27. Wiggans G.R., Misztal I., Van Vleck L.D. Implementation of an animal model for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71(Suppl. 2):54-69.
28. Wiggans G.R., VanRaden P.M. Method and effect of adjustment for heterogeneous variance. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74:4350-4357.
29. Wiggans G.R., VanRaden P.M., Cooper T.A. Technical note: Adjustment of all cow evaluations for yield traits to be comparable with bull evaluations. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95:3444-3447.