The hot topic of genetic modification and genome editing is sometimes presented as a rapid solution to various problems in the field of animal breeding and genetics. These technologies hold potential for future use in agriculture but we need to be aware of difficulties in large-scale application and integration in breeding schemes. In this review, we discuss applications of both classical genetic modifications (GM) using vectors and genome editing in dairy cattle breeding. We use an interdisciplinary approach considering both ethical and animal breeding perspectives. Decisions on how to make use of these techniques need to be made based not only on what is possible, but on what is reasonable to do. Principles of animal integrity, naturalness, risk perception, and animal welfare issues are examples of ethically relevant factors to consider. These factors also influence public perception and decisions about regulations by authorities. We need to acknowledge that we lack complete understanding of the genetic background of complex traits. It may be difficult, therefore, to predict the full effect of certain modifications in large-scale breeding programs. We present 2 potential applications: genome editing to dispense with dehorning, and insertion of human genes in bovine genomes to improve udder health as an example of classical GM. Both of these cases could be seen as beneficial for animal welfare but they differ in other aspects. In the former case, a genetic variant already present within the species is introduced, whereas in the latter case, transgenic animals are generated-this difference may influence how society regards the applications. We underline that the use of GM, as well as genome editing, of farm animals such as cattle is not independent of the context, and should be considered as part of an entire process, including, for example, the assisted reproduction technology that needs to be used. We propose that breeding organizations and breeding companies should take an active role in ethical discussions about the use of these techniques and thereby signal to society that these questions are being responsibly addressed.

Background: Leakage of water and ions and soluble proteins from muscle cells occurs during prolonged exercise due to ischemia causing muscle damage. Also post mortem anoxia during conversion of muscle to meat is marked by loss of water and soluble components from the muscle cell. There is considerable variation in the water holding capacity of meat affecting economy of meat production. Water holding capacity depends on numerous genetic and environmental factors relevant to structural and biochemical muscle fibre properties a well as ante and post slaughter metabolic processes.

No abstract

An (Awassi × Merino) × Merino backcross family of 172 ewes was used to map quantitative trait loci (QTL) for different milk production traits on a framework map of 200 loci across all autosomes. From five previously proposed mathematical models describing lactation curves, the Wood model was considered the most appropriate due to its simplicity and its ability to determine ovine lactation curve characteristics. Derived milk traits for milk, fat, protein and lactose yield, as well as percentage composition and somatic cell score were used for single and two-QTL approaches using maximum likelihood estimation and regression analysis. A total of 15 significant (P < 0.01) and additional 25 suggestive (P < 0.05) QTL were detected across both single QTL methods and all traits. In preparation of a meta-analysis, all QTL results were compared with a meta-assembly of QTL for milk production traits in dairy ewes from various public domain sources and can be found on the ReproGen ovine gbrowser http://crcidp.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/cgi-bin/gbrowse/oaries_genome/. Many of the QTL for milk production traits have been reported on chromosomes 1, 3, 6, 16 and 20. Those on chromosomes 3 and 20 are in strong agreement with the results reported here. In addition, novel QTL were found on chromosomes 7, 8, 9, 14, 22 and 24. In a cross-species comparison, we extended the meta-assembly by comparing QTL regions of sheep and cattle, which provided strong evidence for synteny conservation of QTL regions for milk, fat, protein and somatic cell score data between cattle and sheep.

A male sheep linkage map comprising 191 microsatellites was generated from a single family of 510 Awassi-Merino backcross progeny. Except for ovine chromosomes 1, 2, 10 and 17, all other chromosomes yielded a LOD score difference greater than 3.0 between the best and second-best map order. The map is on average 11% longer than the Sheep Linkage Map v4.7 male-specific map. This map was employed in quantitative trait loci (QTL) analyses on body-weight and growth-rate traits between birth and 98 weeks of age. A custom maximum likelihood program was developed to map QTL in half-sib families for non-inbred strains (QTL-MLE) and is freely available on request. The new analysis package offers the advantage of enabling QTL × fixed effect interactions to be included in the model. Fifty-four putative QTL were identified on nine chromosomes. Significant QTL with sex-specific effects (i.e. QTL × sex interaction) in the range of 0.4 to 0.7 SD were found on ovine chromosomes 1, 3, 6, 11, 21, 23, 24 and 26.