2007 paul vanraden, melvin tooker*, george wiggans animal improvement programs laboratory...

2007

Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker*, George Wiggans Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker*, George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory [email protected]

2009

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

Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, April 2009 (2) Melvin Tooker200

9

Proven Bulls or Young Bulls?Proven Bulls or Young Bulls?


9

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

50001

95

0

19

70

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

Year of Birth

Nu

mb

er o

f A

nim

als Predictor

Predictee

Young


9

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

500019

50

1970

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Year of Birth

Nu

mb

er

of

An

ima

ls Predictor

Predictee

Young


9

Genotyped Animals (n=25,393)Genotyped Animals (n=25,393)In North America as of April 2009In North America as of April 2009

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

500019

50

1970

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Year of Birth

Nu

mb

er

of

An

ima

ls Predictor

Predictee

Young


9

Adoption of Genomic TestingAdoption of Genomic TestingUS young bulls with NAAB codes, Apr 2009US 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

* 2007-2008 counts are incomplete


9

Genomic Tested BullsGenomic Tested BullsAvailable Apr 2009Available Apr 2009

Age (yrs) Reliability Net Merit

Freddie 4 74 905

Twist 1 68 874

Cassino 1 69 871

Al 1 69 866

ManOMan 5 83 779


9

Young vs. Old Bull TestYoung 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)


9

Net Merit of Top 20 Bulls Net Merit of Top 20 Bulls from 2009 data based on selection in 2004from 2009 data based on selection in 2004

Bulls Selection Net Merit

young

Parent average

$395

Genomic $516

provenTraditional $381

Genomic $463


9

Changes in Net Merit meansChanges in Net Merit means for top 20 bulls for top 20 bulls (2009 – 2004)(2009 – 2004)

Bulls Selection Change

young

Parent average

-$278

Genomic -$130

provenTraditional -$96

Genomic -$30


9

Net Merit regressions Net Merit regressions Predict 2009 from 2004 data, Predict 2009 from 2004 data, expected = 1.00expected = 1.00

Bulls Selection Regression

young

Parent average

0.63

Genomic 0.74

provenTraditional 0.91

Genomic 1.10


9

Average regressions across all traits Average regressions across all traits Predict 2009 from 2004 data, Predict 2009 from 2004 data, expected = 1.00expected = 1.00

Bulls Selection Regression

young

Parent average

0.85

Genomic 0.92

provenTraditional 1.03

Genomic 1.05


9

Genomic vs. TraditionalGenomic vs. Traditional

Examine traditional and genomic trends for two traits:• Net Merit • Protein

Data from February 2009


9

Genomic vs. traditional – Genomic vs. traditional – protein protein PTAPTA

0

10

20

30

40

50

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Birth year

Pro

tein

PT

A (

lb)

Genomic

Traditional

Traditional PA


9

Genomic vs. traditional – Genomic vs. traditional – net meritnet merit

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Birth year

Net

mer

it (

$)

Traditional

Genomic

Traditional PA


9

Genomic vs. trad. – Genomic vs. trad. – protein protein reliabilityreliability

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Birth year

Pro

tein

rel

iab

ilit

y (%

)

Traditional

Genomic

Traditional PA


9

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Birth year

Net

mer

itre

liab

ility

(%

)

Traditional

GenomicTraditional PA

Genomic vs. trad. – Genomic vs. trad. – net merit net merit reliabilityreliability


9

Reliability frequencyReliability frequency

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Reliability

Nu

mb

er o

f B

ull

s

Genomic PTA

Traditional PA


9

ConclusionsConclusions

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


9

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

Genotyping and DNA extraction:• 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

– 2006-35205-16888, 2006-35205-167012006-35205-16888, 2006-35205-16701• Agriculture Research Service• Holstein, Jersey and Brown Swiss breed

associations• Contributors to Cooperative Dairy DNA Repository

(CDDR)


9

CDDR ContributorsCDDR 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)

2007 paul vanraden, melvin tooker*, george wiggans animal improvement programs laboratory...

Documents