Advantage of including Genomic Information to Predict Breeding Values for Lactation Yields of Milk, Fat, and Protein or Somatic Cell Score in a New Zealand Dairy Goat Herd

A comparison of genetic and genomic breeding values in Saanen and Alpine goats

Nowadays, several countries are developing or adopting genomic selection in the dairy goat sector. The most used method to estimate breeding values is Single-Step Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (ssGBLUP) which offers several advantages in terms of computational process and accuracy of the estimated breeding values (EBVs). Saanen and Alpine are the predominant dairy goat breeds in Italy, and both have similar breeding programs where EBVs for productive traits are currently calculated using BLUP. This work describes the implementation of genomic selection for these two breeds in Italy, aligning with the selection practices already carried out in the international landscape. The available dataset included 3 611 genotyped animals, 11 470 lactation records, five traits (milk, protein and fat yields, and fat and protein percentages), and three-generation pedigrees. EBVs were estimated using BLUP, GBLUP, and ssGBLUP both with single and multiple trait approaches. The methods were compared in terms of correlation between EBVs and genetic trends. Results were also validated with the linear regression method excluding part of the phenotypic data. In both breeds, EBVs and GEBVs were strongly correlated and the trend of each trait was similar comparing the three methods. The average increase in accuracy across traits and methods amounted to +13 and +10% from BLUP to ssGBLUP for Alpine and Saanen breeds, respectively. Results indicated higher prediction accuracy and correlation for GBLUP and ssGBLUP compared to BLUP, implying that the use of genotypes increases the accuracy of EBVs, particularly in the absence of phenotypic data. Therefore, ssGBLUP is likely to be the most effective method to enhance genetic gain in Italian Saanen and Alpine goats.

Genetic evaluations of dairy goats with few pedigree data: different approaches to use molecular information

One of the limitations of implementing animal breeding programs in small-scale or extensive production systems is the lack of production records and genealogical records. In this context, molecular markers could help to gain information for the breeding program. This study addresses the inclusion of molecular data into traditional genetic evaluation models as a random effect by molecular pedigree reconstruction and as a fixed effect by Bayesian clustering. The methods were tested for lactation curve traits in 14 dairy goat herds with incomplete phenotypic data and pedigree information. The results showed an increment of 37.3% of the relationships regarding the originals with MOLCOAN and clustering into five genetic groups. Data leads to estimating additive variance, error variance, and heritability with four different models, including pedigree and molecular information. Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) values demonstrate a greater fitting of the models that include molecular information either as fixed (genetic clusters) or as random (molecular matrix) effects. The molecular information of simple markers can complement genetic improvement strategies in populations with little information.

Validation with single-step SNPBLUP shows that evaluations can continue using a single mean of genotyped individuals, even with multiple breeds

BACKGROUND

In genomic prediction, it is common to centre the genotypes of single nucleotide polymorphisms based on the allele frequencies in the current population, rather than those in the base generation. The mean breeding value of non-genotyped animals is conditional on the mean performance of genotyped relatives, but can be corrected by fitting the mean performance of genotyped individuals as a fixed regression. The associated covariate vector has been referred to as a 'J-factor', which if fitted as a fixed effect can improve the accuracy and dispersion bias of sire genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). To date, this has only been performed on populations with a single breed. Here, we investigated whether there was any benefit in fitting a separate J-factor for each breed in a three-way crossbred population, and in using pedigree-based expected or genome-based estimated breed fractions to define the J-factors.

RESULTS

For body weight at 7 days, dispersion bias decreased when fitting multiple J-factors, but only with a low proportion of genotyped individuals with selective genotyping. On average, the mean regression coefficients of validation records on those of GEBV increased with one J-factor compared to none, and further increased with multiple J-factors. However, for body weight at 35 days this was not observed. The accuracy of GEBV remained unchanged regardless of the J-factor method used. Differences between the J-factor methods were limited with correlations approaching 1 for the estimated covariate vector, the estimated coefficients of the regression on the J-factors, and the GEBV.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results and in the particular design analysed here, i.e. all the animals with phenotype are of the same type of crossbreds, fitting a single J-factor should be sufficient, to reduce dispersion bias. Fitting multiple J-factors may reduce dispersion bias further but this depends on the trait and genotyping rate. For the crossbred population analysed, fitting multiple J-factors has no adverse consequences and if this is done, it does not matter if the breed fractions used are based on the pedigree-expectation or the genomic estimates. Finally, when GEBV are estimated from crossbred data, any observed bias can potentially be reduced by including a straightforward regression on actual breed proportions.