An updated version of lifetime net merit incorporating additional fertility traits and new economic values

478 views

Published on

The slides for my upcoming talk on the 2014 revision of the lifetime net merit selection index to be presented at the 2014 ASAS-ADSA-CSAS Joint Annual Meeting in Kansas City, MO.

Published in: Science
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
478
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
24
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

An updated version of lifetime net merit incorporating additional fertility traits and new economic values

  1. 1. John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 john.cole@ars.usda.gov 2014 An updated version of lifetime net merit incorporating additional fertility traits and new economic values
  2. 2. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (2) Cole and VanRaden Introduction  Lifetime net merit (NM$) is a selection index for commercial dairy producers  Cheese-, fluid, and grazing-merit indices accommodate alternative marketing & production scenarios  The goal is to produce cattle that will be profitable under market conditions in 3 to 5 years.
  3. 3. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (3) Cole and VanRaden Why do we need to update NM$?  New traits can better describe the biology of the cow.  Production economics change in response to market demands and policy decisions.  Changes in evaluation methodology or trait definitions can affect calculations.
  4. 4. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (4) Cole and VanRaden Trait Relative emphasis on traits in index (%) PD$ 1971 MFP$ 1976 CY$ 1984 NM$ 1994 NM$ 2000 NM$ 2003 NM$ 2006 NM$ 2010 Milk 52 27 –2 6 5 0 0 0 Fat 48 46 45 25 21 22 23 19 Protein … 27 53 43 36 33 23 16 PL … … … 20 14 11 17 22 SCS … … … –6 –9 –9 –9 –10 UDC … … … … 7 7 6 7 FLC … … … … 4 4 3 4 BDC … … … … –4 –3 –4 –6 DPR … … … … … 7 9 11 SCE … … … … … –2 … … DCE … … … … … –2 … … CA$ … … … … … … 6 5 Our indices have changed over time
  5. 5. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (5) Cole and VanRaden The economic situation has changed  Milk prices are higher than predicted in 2010, driven largely by a strong export market, which increases the value of production.  Replacement prices are lower and beef prices higher than in 2010, which decreases the value of longevity.  Replacement prices have been volatile.  Beef futures are forecast to remain high.
  6. 6. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (6) Cole and VanRaden We have more traits to describe fertility  Daughter pregnancy rate from lactation data (1960s to present).  Heifer and cow conception rates from fertility data (2003 to present).  Fertility traits benefit from multi-trait processing.  Genetic correlations are high and many observations are missing. DPR HCR CCR DPR 0.04 0.41 0.87 HCR 0.10 0.02 0.54 CCR 0.70 0.10 0.03 Heritabilities (diagonal) and genetic (above) and phenotypic (below) correlations.
  7. 7. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (7) Cole and VanRaden Graziers face different challenges  Graziers face different economic pressures  Notably, more fertility and less longevity  GM$ 2014 does not include dairy form, as proposed by Gay et al. (2014).  We’re working with the traits we have.
  8. 8. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (8) Cole and VanRaden Trait Relative emphasis on traits in index (%) NM$ 2010 CM$ 2014 FM$ 2014 GM$ 2014 NM$ 2014 Milk 0 -8 24 7 7 Fat 19 20 24 22 24 Protein 16 25 0 13 15 PL 22 16 19 11 19 SCS –10 -8 -5 -6 –7 UDC 7 6 7 8 7 FLC 4 3 4 4 4 BDC –6 -4 -4 -4 –4 DPR 11 4 4 14 5 HCR … 1 2 5 2 CCR … 1 2 3 2 CA$ 5 4 5 5 5 Where are we going? More yield (44%) Less fertility, more traits (9%) Less PL (19%)
  9. 9. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (9) Cole and VanRaden Including recessive tests • There are currently 20 recessives tracked in US dairy cattle. • Not all are undesirable (e.g., polled). • Gene dosages are needed in order to include haplotype or SNP tests in NM$. • Could follow after Gengler et al. (2007) or Van Doormaal and Kistemaker (2008). • Estimating associated economic values will be challenging.
  10. 10. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (10) Cole and VanRaden Feed costs are problematic • New data for calculating the feed costs for fat and protein are arriving. • The current model says protein costs more to make than fat. • Intake data indicate even higher protein costs, which seems counterintuitive. • Phenotypic and genetic correlations may differ, as with SCS.
  11. 11. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (11) Cole and VanRaden Subindices may aid interpretation • Calving ease and stillbirth are combined into a calving ability subindex, CA$. • This idea could be extended to other trait groups, such as yield and fertility. • Emphasizes the economic value of the group over individual traits. • Traits can be added without changing the interpretation of the subindex.
  12. 12. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (12) Cole and VanRaden Conclusions • More emphasis on yield and less on fertility & longevity in Dec. 2014 NM$. • NM$ 2014 is correlated by 0.965 with NM$ 2010, and by 0.991 with 2006 NM$. • Increased genetic progress worth $8 million/year is expected if all breeders select on NM$. • The addition of GM$ provides a new selection tool for graziers.
  13. 13. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (13) Cole and VanRaden Acknowledgments • The members of SCC084, “Genetic selection and mating strategies to improve the well-being and efficiency of dairy cattle”. • Investigators on AFRI Integrated Project 2011-68004-30340, “Genomic Selection and Herd Management for Improved Feed Efficiency of the Dairy Industry”.
  14. 14. 2014 Joint Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO, July 21, 2014 (14) Cole and VanRaden Questions? http://gigaom.com/2012/05/31/t-mobile-pits-its-math-against-verizons-the-loser-common-sense/shutterstock_76826245/

×