Poster T 044 1 Animal Genomics Abstract 946

Poster T 044 1 Animal Genomics Abstract #946 ADSA-ASAS-CSAS Joint Meeting July 22, 2014, Kansas City, MO Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. 1 Van. Raden , C. 2 Sun , Definitions: Ø The percent of inseminated heifers (HCR) or cows (CCR) that become pregnant at each service Ø Daughter pregnancy rate (DPR): The percent of nonpregnant cows that become pregnant in each 21 -day time interval Previous model: Ø Single breed BLUPF 90 model software (Misztal). No crossbred cows included, only crossbred breeding Ø Modeled with multiple binary success per lactation (e. g. no, yes) DATA & METHODS Individual breeding records combined to create 13 million CCR lactation records, 3. 8 million HCR records 66 million DPR records (correlated trait) Pedigree records (64. 9 million) included old, young and disconnected animals not included previously Trait / Breed HCR: Holste in : Ø All breeds combined; crossbreds included Ø Pre-adjusted for regionmonth of. OBJECTIVES breeding, service number, mating Compare the short accuracy type, cycleof conception effects andrate combined evaluations from the into a single lactation previous record (BLUPF 90) and the new software Jersey Brown Swiss Model included: • 27 million permanent environment effects 0. 016 • 2 regressions for DPRinbreeding 0. 10 0. 70 and heterosis Holstein Jersey Brown Swiss Guernsey 543, 491 32, 0 07 4, 44 9 1, 74 612 2 1, 44 0. 96 1 0. 89 2 0. 95 7 0. 986 2, 10 7 0. 988 157 0. 999 7 0. 954 15, 5 56 1, 39 0 0. 961 122 0. 958 DPR Additional models combining 6 other traits (milk, fat, and protein yield, somatic cell score, productive life and DPR) were run with the new software on 76. 8 million lactations and compared with previous results Correlations of previous evaluation All-breed models and single and geneticmodel parameters were multi-trait similar to those used in evaluation from new current software Correlati software for 9, 476 Correlat on with Holstein* bulls born 2000 ion of ST previous 2008 with >50 daughters evaluati and MT EBV from new on softwar Trait ST MT e 0. 99 Milk 6 4 0. 998 0. 99 Fat 6 4 0. 998 0. 99 Protein 5 3 0. 998 Somatic 0. 99 cell score 9 6 0. 996 Dau preg. 0. 99 0. 97 *rate Other breeds slightly lower 5 1 0. 976 Productiv 0. 98 0. 95 e life (ST) 8 1 0. 974 Ø Correlations were higher Productiv 0. 96 previous ebetween life (MT) 7 and ST 7 0. 974 because previous evaluations were ST 0. 36 0. 86 0. 04 Genetic trends by breed for HCR on all-breed scale Phenotypic and breeding Females value means for with conception rate of Phenot records ypic heifers and cows born in (no. ) mean (%) 2005 expressed as a difference from Breed HCR CCR Holsteins HCR CCR 302, 007 11, 5 33 1, 62 0 0. 98 0 0. 91 0 0. 95 4 0. 97 0. 95 3 2 0. 94 Genetic trends by breed for 0. 90 Jersey 3 4 CCR on all-breed scale Brown 0. 88 0. 85 Swiss 0 9 • 274, 795 heifer RESULTS management groups 0. 10 evaluati and MT on Numb EBV Aller from bre of new ed ed softw bul ST MT are ls CCR: Holste in • 6. 8 million herd management groups CCR FUTURE / ADDITIONAL WORK Correlations of previous evaluation and single trait (ST) and multi-trait (MT) model evaluation for HCR and CCR for bulls born 1996 Correlat or later with >50% ion with ation reliability previous of ST US national dairy database as of August 2013 • 495 genetic age-parity groups Multi-trait correlations (above • 5 parity groups diagonal), heritabilities • 6 heifer age groups (on diagonal), and HCR CCR phenotypic correlations • 300 unknown parent HCR 0. 01 0. 45 (below diagonal) groups http: //aipl. arsusda. gov RESULTS (cont. ) Birth year groups before 2000 were combined Ø Breeding records only available since 2003 and M. E. 1 Tooker Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705 -2350 2 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia, MO 65205 Cow conception rate (CCR) and heifer conception rate (HCR) evaluations have been calculated since 2010 Ø Model included adjustments for permanent environment, management group (herdyear-season-parityregistry status), yearstate-month of breeding, service number, mating type, short cycle, age group at breeding and lactation number J. L. 1 Hutchison & Improvement INTRODUCTION New model J. R. 1 Wright *, 56. 0 50. 9 44. 1 44. 8 47. 31. 8 37. 8 28. 3 26. 1 38. CONCLUSIONS Multi-trait processing with DPR makes CCR and HCR more accurate Breed ing value mean (%) HCR CCR 0. 0. 0 0 0. +5. 8 7 7. 4. 1 5 6. 7. 7 1 4. +0. Multi-breed processing allows CCR and HCR evaluations to be available for crossbred animals All breeds passed Interbull method 1 trend test for CCR and all passed method 3 for CCR and HCR, except for Ayrshire CCR The new software allows for different models for different traits and enables easier testing of potential changes to model Estimated genetic Implementation of new