Short communication: Analysis of genomic predictor population for Holstein dairy cattle in the United States-Effects of sex and age

Journal of Dairy Science

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 2785-2788

  Cooper, T A ^a   Wiggans, G R ^a   VanRaden, P M ^a  

^a AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Dairy cattle; Genomic evaluation; Single nucleotide polymorphism

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; BOS;

AGING; ANIMAL; BIRTH; BOVINE; FEMALE; GENETIC LINKAGE; GENETICS; GENOME; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; PROCEDURES; SEX DIFFERENCE; UNITED STATES;

AGING; ANIMALS; CATTLE; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; GENETIC LINKAGE; GENOME; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; MALE; PARTURITION; SEX FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84925294168     PISSN: 00220302     EISSN: 15253198     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-8894     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Calus M.P.L., de Haas Y., Veerkamp R.F. Combining cow and bull reference populations to increase accuracy of genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96:6703-6715.
2. Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding. 2014. Genotypes included in evaluations by breed, chip density, presence of phenotypes (old vs. young), and evaluation year-month (cumulative). Accessed Sep. 22, 2014. http://http://https:/www.cdcb.us/Genotype/cur_density.html.
3. Dassonneville R., Baur A., Fritz S., Boichard D., Ducrocq V. Inclusion of cow records in genomic evaluations and impact on bias due to preferential treatment. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2012, 44:40.
4. Lourenco D.A.L., Misztal I., Tsuruta S., Aguilar I., Lawlor T.J., Forni S., Weller J.I. Are evaluations on young genotyped animals benefiting from the past generations?. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97:3930-3942.
5. Reinhardt F., Liu Z., Seefried F., Thaller G. Implementation of genomic evaluation in German Holsteins. Interbull Bull. 2009, 40:219-226.
6. Schenkel F.S., Sargolzaei M., Kistemaker G., Jansen G.B., Sullivan P., Van Doormaal B.J., VanRaden P.M., Wiggans G.R. Reliability of genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle in Canada. Interbull Bull. 2009, 39:51-58.
7. Spelman, R. J., J. Arias, M. D. Keehan, V. Obolonkin, A. M. Winkelman, D. L. Johnson, and B. L. Harris. 2010. Application of genomic selection in the New Zealand dairy cattle industry. Proc. 9th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Leipzig, Germany, Commun. 0311. Gesellschaft für Tierzuchtwissenschaften e.V., Gießen, Germany. Accessed Sep. 17, 2014. http://http://www.kongressband.de/wcgalp2010/assets/pdf/0311.pdf.
8. Thomasen J.R., Sørensen A.C., Lund M.S., Guldbrandtsen B. Adding cows to the reference population makes a small dairy population competitive. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97:5822-5832.
9. VanRaden P.M., Van Tassell C.P., Wiggans G.R., Sonstegard T.S., Schnabel R.D., Taylor J.F., Schenkel F.S. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:16-24.
10. Wiggans G.R., Cooper T.A., VanRaden P.M., Cole J.B. Technical note: Adjustment of traditional cow evaluations to improve accuracy of genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94:6188-6193. a.
11. Wiggans G.R., VanRaden P.M., Cooper T.A. The genomic evaluation system in the United States: Past, present, future. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94:3202-3211. b.
12. 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.