Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-23T19:35:47.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genomic selection using beef commercial carcass phenotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2013

D. L. Todd ,
T. Roughsedge  and
J. A. Woolliams
D. L. Todd*
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics and Genomics, The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH29 9RG, Scotland Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group (AVS), Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH29 9RG, Scotland
T. Roughsedge
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Research Group (AVS), Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH29 9RG, Scotland
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Division of Genetics and Genomics, The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH29 9RG, Scotland
*
†E-mail: darrentodd9@aol.com
Get access

Abstract

In this study, an industry terminal breeding goal was used in a deterministic simulation, using selection index methodology, to predict genetic gain in a beef population modelled on the UK pedigree Limousin, when using genomic selection (GS) and incorporating phenotype information from novel commercial carcass traits. The effect of genotype–environment interaction was investigated by including the model variations of the genetic correlation between purebred and commercial cross-bred performance (ρX). Three genomic scenarios were considered: (1) genomic breeding values (GBV)+estimated breeding values (EBV) for existing selection traits; (2) GBV for three novel commercial carcass traits+EBV in existing traits; and (3) GBV for novel and existing traits plus EBV for existing traits. Each of the three scenarios was simulated for a range of training population (TP) sizes and with three values of ρX. Scenarios 2 and 3 predicted substantially higher percentage increases over current selection than Scenario 1. A TP of 2000 sires, each with 20 commercial progeny with carcass phenotypes, and assuming a ρX of 0.7, is predicted to increase gain by 40% over current selection in Scenario 3. The percentage increase in gain over current selection increased with decreasing ρX; however, the effect of varying ρX was reduced at high TP sizes for Scenarios 2 and 3. A further non-genomic scenario (4) was considered simulating a conventional population-wide progeny test using EBV only. With 20 commercial cross-bred progenies per sire, similar gain was predicted to Scenario 3 with TP=5000 and ρX=1.0. The range of increases in genetic gain predicted for terminal traits when using GS are of similar magnitude to those observed after the implementation of BLUP technology in the United Kingdom. It is concluded that implementation of GS in a terminal sire breeding goal, using purebred phenotypes alone, will be sub-optimal compared with the inclusion of novel commercial carcass phenotypes in genomic evaluations.

Keywords

animal breedinggenomic selectionbeef cattlecarcass traits
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 388 - 394
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amer, PR, Crump, R and Simm, G 1998. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 67, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Angus Association 2012. Genomic evaluations. Retrieved July 10, 2012, from http http://www.angus.org/Nce/WeeklyEvalGenomicData.aspx.html Google Scholar
BASCO 2012. Limousin pedigree genetic evaluation records. BASCO Database, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bijma, P and van Arendonk, JAM 1998. Maximising genetic gain for sire line of a crossbreeding scheme utilizing both purebred and crossbred information. Animal Science 66, 529–542.Google Scholar
British Limousin Cattle Society 2012. Studbook and factfinder. British Limousin Cattle Society, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
Brito, FV, Braccini Neto, JB, Sargolzaei, M, Cobuci, JA and Schenkel, FS 2011. Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle. BMC Genetics 12, 80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouquet, A, Venot, E, Laloë, D, Forabosco, F, Fogh, A, Pabiou, T, Moore, K, Eriksson, JA, Renand, G and Phocas, F 2010. Genetic structure of the European Charolais and Limousin cattle metapopulations using pedigree analyses. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1719–1730.Google Scholar
Daetwyler, HD 2009. Genome-wide evaluation of populations. PhD, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Daetwyler, HD, Villanueva, B and Woolliams, JA 2008. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS One 3, e3395.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JC 2007a. Prediction of response of marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. Journal of Animal Breeding Genetics 124, 331–341.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JC 2007b. Marker-assisted selection for commercial crossbred performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2104–2114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deukwhan, L and Vasco, A 2011. Predicting the accuracy of breeding values using high density genome scans. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 24, 162–172.Google Scholar
Garrick, DJ 2011. The nature, scope and impact of genomic prediction in beef cattle in the United States. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, KE, Cundiff, LV and Koch, RM 1995. Genetic and phenotypic (co)variances for growth and carcass traits of purebred and composite populations of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1920–1926.Google Scholar
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR and Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.Google Scholar
Hoards Dairyman 2011. Genomics is being adopted at a swift pace. March 10, 164. W.D. Hoard and Sons, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
Ibanez-Erische, N, Fernando, RL, Toosi, A and Dekkers, JC 2009. Genomic selection of purebreds for crossbred performance. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, DJ, Tier, B and Graser, H-U 2012. Beef cattle breeding in Australia with genomics: opportunities and needs. Animal Production Science 52, 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorjani, H, Klei, L and Emanuelson, U 2003. A simple method for weighted bending of genetic (co)variance matrices. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 677–679.Google Scholar
Konig, S and Swalve, HH 2009. Application of selection index calculations to determine selection strategies in genomic breeding programs. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5292–5303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE 2009. Accuracy of breeding values of ‘unrelated’ individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, S, Reverter, A and Johnston, DJ 2002. Purebred-crossbred performance and genetic evaluation of postweaning growth and carcass traits in Bos indicus×Bos taurus crosses in Australia. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1801–1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunez-Dominguez, R, Van Vleck, LD, Boldman, KG and Cundiff, LV 1993. Correlations for genetic expressions for growth of calves of Hereford and Angus dams using a multivariate animal model. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2330–2340.Google Scholar
Pabiou, T 2012. Genetics of carcass composition in Irish cattle exploiting carcass video image analysis. PhD, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Saatchi, M, McClure, MC, McKay, SD, Rolf, MM, Kim, J, Decker, JE, Taxis, TM, Chapple, RH, Ramey, R, Northcutt, SL, Bauck, S, Woodward, B, Dekkers, JC, Fernando, RL, Schnabel, RD, Garrick, DJ and Taylor, JF 2011. Accuracies of genomic breeding values in American Angus beef cattle using K-means clustering for cross-validation. Genetic Selection Evolution 43, 40.Google Scholar
Todd, DL, Woolliams, JAW and Roughsedge, TR 2011. Gene flow in a national cross-breeding beef population. Animal 6, 1874–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, DL, Roughsedge, TR, Coffey, MP and Woolliams, JAW 2012. Breeding structure of the pedigree Limousin cattle population in the UK. Advances in Animal Sciences 3, 61.Google Scholar
Toosi, A, Fernando, RL and Dekkers, JC 2009. Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations. Animal Science 88, 32–46.Google Scholar
Van Eenennaam, AL, van der Werf, JHJ and Goddard, ME 2011. The value of using DNA markers for beef bull selection in the seedstock sector. Journal of Animal Science 89, 307–320.Google Scholar
Wiggans, GR, Van Raden, PM and Cooper, TA 2011. The genomic evaluation system in the United Sates: Past, present, future. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3202–3211.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Todd Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S7

Download Todd Supplementary Material(File)
File 32.9 KB