Developing a genetic evaluation system for milk traits in Russian black and white dairy cattle

Abstract

Mixed linear models have been applied for predicting breeding values of dairy cattle in most of the developed countries since the 1980s. However, the Russian Federation is still using the old contemporary comparison method. The objective of our study was to develop a best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for an animal model of breeding values for the Leningrad region. We tested both a first-lactation model (FLM) and a multi-lactation repeatability model (MLM). The data included milk records of 206 114 cows from 49 herds. Estimated heritabilities from FLM were 0.24, 0.20, and 0.20 for milk, protein, and fat yields, respectively, and 0.18, 0.19, and 0.20 from MLM. Repeatabilities were 0.34 for milk yield and 0.31 for both fat and protein yields. Genetic trends were similar for both models (FLM vs MLM): 59 vs 56 kg year-1 for milk, 1.90 vs 1.84 kg year-1 for fat, and 1.67 vs 1.62 kg year-1 for protein yield during 2000–2016. Based on the difference between the genetic trends in FLM and MLM, the applied BLUP method passed the validation method I by Interbull.

Single‐step genomic evaluation of Russian dairy cattle using internal and external information

“…The repeatability animal model presented in Kudinov et al. (2018) was modified by including a herd‐by‐sire interaction random effect (Wiggans et al., 1988) and a respective variance component (). Variance components and breeding values were estimated using the model:where y is a vector of milk or fat yield records, b is a vector of the fixed effects, and and are vectors of random animal breeding values, permanent environmental and herd‐by‐sire interaction effects, X is a design matrix relating fixed effects to the records, Z 1 , Z 2 and Z 3 are design matrices relating the random effects to the records, and is a vector of the residual effects.…”

“…Contemporary comparison is the current official dairy bull evaluation method in Russia, but state-of-the-art animal model evaluations have already been proposed (Kudinov et al, 2017(Kudinov et al, , 2018. In 2016, the Leningrad Region (LR) (Figure 1) Committee on Agriculture and Fishery (Saint Petersburg, Russia) initiated a research and development project to apply genomic evaluations of production traits using BLUP methodology.…”

“…The northeastern part of the Baltic sea. The Leningrad region of the Russian Federation is highlighted with a dark grey colour (the plot was created in R with the ggplot2 software package, Wickham, 2016) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] breeds kept in 49 herds, with an average herd size of approximately 1,000 cows (Kudinov et al, 2018). Because the number of progeny-tested bulls was low genotyping cows was the only way to increase the reference population.…”

Impacto de las evaluaciones genéticas en las tendencias genéticas de bovinos Jersey y Suizo Americano en México

“…Diversos estudios en varios países han estimado tendencias genéticas en razas bovinas lecheras con programas estructurados de mejoramiento genético, como Holstein (Pezeshkian et al, 2016;Konkruea et al, 2017;Kudinov et al, 2018), Gyr (Canaza-Cayo et al, 2016) y Jersey (Nizamani y Berger, 1996). Así mismo, con el fin de indagar sobre el origen del progreso genético, se han reportado diferentes formas de calcular las tendencias genéticas tales como por periodos (Canaza-Cayo et al, 2016), por vías de selección (Nizamani y Berger, 1996;Canaza-Cayo et al, 2016), por origen de los animales (Pezeshkian et al, 2016;Konkruea et al, 2017), con promedios ponderados por el número de progenie (Toledo et al, 2014;Canaza-Cayo et al, 2016;Pezeshkian et al, 2016) e, incluso, a nivel de hatos (Sarakul et al, 2011).…”

“…ganancias anuales de 29 kg año -1 en Holstein, y en RusiaKudinov et al (2018) estimaron 55.8 kg año -1 en las poblaciones Black and White y Holstein.En la Fig.1se muestra el progreso bajo pero constante de SA, aunque a partir de 2005 el progreso tendió a reducirse; en cambio, JE mostró un cambio radical en los objetivos de selección a partir de 2005, lo que resultó en la tendencia general negativa. En este aspecto,Larios-Sarabia et al (2011) encontraron que casi el total de leche de estos hatos se comercializaba a la industria para su transformación, aunque sólo en la mitad recibían algún premio o castigo por calidad.…”