Abstract

BackgroundCattle international genetic evaluations allow the comparison of estimated breeding values (EBV) across different environments, i.e. countries. For international evaluations, across-country genetic correlations (rg) need to be estimated. However, lack of convergence of the estimated parameters and high standard errors of the rg are often experienced for beef cattle populations due to limited across-country genetic connections. Furthermore, using all available genetic connections to estimate rg is prohibitive due to computational constraints, thus sub-setting the data is necessary. Our objective was to investigate and compare the impact of strategies of data sub-setting on estimated across-country rg and their computational requirements.MethodsPhenotype and pedigree information for age-adjusted weaning weight was available for ten European countries and 3,128,338 Limousin beef cattle males and females. Using a Monte Carlo based expectation–maximization restricted maximum likelihood (MC EM REML) methodology, we estimated across-country rg by using a multi-trait animal model where countries are modelled as different correlated traits. Values of rg were estimated using the full data and four different sub-setting strategies that aimed at selecting the most connected herds from the largest population.ResultsUsing all available data, direct and maternal rg (standard errors in parentheses) were on average equal to 0.79 (0.14) and 0.71 (0.19), respectively. Direct-maternal within-country and between-country rg were on average equal to − 0.12 (0.09) and 0.00 (0.14), respectively. Data sub-setting scenarios gave similar results: on average, estimated rg were smaller compared to using all data for direct (0.02) and maternal (0.05) genetic effects. The largest differences were obtained for the direct-maternal within-country and between-country rg, which were, on average 0.13 and 0.12 smaller compared to values obtained by using all data. Standard errors always increased when reducing the data, by 0.02 to 0.06, on average. The proposed sub-setting strategies reduced the required computing time up to 22% compared to using all data.ConclusionsEstimating all 120 across-country rg that are required for beef cattle international evaluations, using a multi-trait MC EM REML approach, is feasible but involves long computing time. We propose four strategies to reduce computational requirements while keeping a multi-trait estimation approach. In all scenarios with data sub-setting, the estimated rg were consistently smaller (mainly for direct-maternal rg) and had larger standard errors.

Highlights

  • Cattle international genetic evaluations allow the comparison of estimated breeding values (EBV) across different environments, i.e. countries

  • First, we present the results for the assessment of the available genetic connections in the whole dataset, followed by the estimated rg in each scenario and their computational requirements

  • The number of sires used within a country varied considerably, with a minimum of 554 bulls for Czech Republic (CZE), and a maximum of 57,784 bulls for FRA, which reflects the differences in the population sizes of participating countries

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cattle international genetic evaluations allow the comparison of estimated breeding values (EBV) across different environments, i.e. countries. Many phenotypes are recorded in both sexes, the number of genetic connections between populations is small due to the limited use of artificial insemination [2] Such small numbers of genetic connections between populations have been reported since the first Interbeef pilot study [3] and in international evaluations of small dairy breeds [4, 5]. This lack of genetic connections between beef cattle populations makes the estimation of across-country rg more difficult. Estimating across-country rg is even more challenging in Interbeef evaluations than in dairy breeds because, in addition to the direct genetic effect, maternal genetic and permanent environment effects are usually included in the model [1, 3]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.