Domestic estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values of bulls in comparison with their foreign genomic enhanced breeding values

Abstract

Estimated breeding values (EBVs) and genomic enhanced breeding values (GEBVs) for milk production of young genotyped Holstein bulls were predicted using a conventional BLUP -Animal Model, a method fitting regression coefficients for loci (RRBLUP), a method utilizing the realized genomic relationship matrix (GBLUP), by a single-step procedure (ssGBLUP) and by a one-step blending procedure. Information sources for prediction were the nation-wide database of domestic Czech production records in the first lactation combined with deregressed proofs (DRP) from Interbull files (August 2013) and domestic test-day (TD) records for the first three lactations. Data from 2627 genotyped bulls were used, of which 2189 were already proven under domestic conditions. Analyses were run that used Interbull values for genotyped bulls only or that used Interbull values for all available sires. Resultant predictions were compared with GEBV of 96 young foreign bulls evaluated abroad and whose proofs were from Interbull method GMACE (August 2013) on the Czech scale. Correlations of predictions with GMACE values of foreign bulls ranged from 0.33 to 0.75. Combining domestic data with Interbull EBVs improved prediction of both EBV and GEBV. Predictions by Animal Model (traditional EBV) using only domestic first lactation records and GMACE values were correlated by only 0.33. Combining the nation-wide domestic database with all available DRP for genotyped and un-genotyped sires from Interbull resulted in an EBV correlation of 0.60, compared with 0.47 when only Interbull data were used. In all cases, GEBVs had higher correlations than traditional EBVs, and the highest correlations were for predictions from the ssGBLUP procedure using combined data (0.75), or with all available DRP from Interbull records only (one-step blending approach, 0.69). The ssGBLUP predictions using the first three domestic lactation records in the TD model were correlated with GMACE predictions by 0.69, 0.64 and 0.61 for milk yield, protein yield and fat yield, respectively.

Associations between gene polymorphisms, breeding values, and glucose tolerance test parameters in German Holstein sires

“…The comparison to the published results can be commented with respect to the limited transferability of estimates between populations (e.g. Pribyl et al 2015).…”

GWAS in practical cattle breeding in Czech Republic, single step method, genetic progress

“…GEBVs are accompanied by reliabilities calculated according modifi cations of Misztal et al (2013). Recent results of genomic evaluation on Czech data are in Bauer et al (2014Bauer et al ( , 2015, Pešek et al (2015), Přibyl et al (2014Přibyl et al ( , 2015 and Zavadilová et al (2014).…”

Strategies for comparing and combining different genetic and genomic evaluations: A review

“…Only approaches based on pseudo-records (Přibyl et al, 2013(Přibyl et al, , 2015VanRaden, 2012) and Bayesian approaches (Colinet et al, 2013;Vandenplas et al, 2014) were proposed to integrate external information into single-step genomic evaluations in the context of dairy cattle evaluations. Both these approaches integrated MACE EBVs into single-step genomic evaluations by accounting for possible double counting of contributions among MACE and internal sources.…”

“…For the pseudorecords based approaches, only one pseudo-record and associated weight per animal was derived from MACE information and added to the conventional data. Přibyl et al (2013Přibyl et al ( , 2015 avoided double counting of contributions due to records among MACE information and internal data by eliminating bulls with daughters in the internal data. While VanRaden (2012) used also a pseudo-records based approach, they considered all available bulls and accounted for double counting by using internal EBVs to compute DEGM for the bulls with both external and internal daughters and by subtracting internal DE from total DE from MACE EBVs (as described in the Section 3.2).…”