Search

ABSTRACT Genetic trends are a valuable tool for analysing the efficiency of breeding programs. They are calculated by averaging the predicted breeding values for all individuals born within a specific time period. Moreover, partitioned genetic trends allow dissecting the contributions of several selection paths to overall genetic progress. These trends are based on the linear relationship between breeding values and the Mendelian sampling terms of ancestors, enabling genetic trends to be split into contributions from different categories of individuals. However, (1) the use of predicted breeding values in calculating partitioned genetic trends depends on the variance components used and (2) a multiple trait analysis allows accounting for selection on correlated traits. These points are often not considered. To overcome these limitations, we present a software called “TM_TRENDS.” This software performs a Bayesian analysis of partitioned genetic trends in a multiple trait model, accounting for uncertainty in the variance components. To illustrate the capabilities of this tool, we analysed the partitioned genetic trends for five traits (Birth Weight, Weight at 210 days, Cold Carcass Weight, Carcass Conformation, and Fatness Conformation) in two Spanish beef cattle breeds, Pirenaica and Rubia Gallega. The global genetic trends showed an increase in Carcass Conformation and a decrease in Birth Weight, Weight at 210 days, Cold Carcass Weight, and Fatness Conformation. These trends were partitioned into six categories: non‐reproductive individuals, dams of females and non‐reproductive individuals, dams of sires, sires with fewer than 20 progeny, sires between 20 and 50 progeny, and sires with more than 50 progeny. The results showed that the main source of genetic progress comes from sires with more than 50 progenies, followed by dams of males. Additionally, two additional features of the Bayesian analysis are presented: the calculation of the posterior probability of the global and partitioned genetic response between two time points, and the calculation of the posterior probability of positive (or negative) genetic progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Single‐step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) relies on the combination of the genomic (G$$ \mathbf{G} $$) and pedigree relationship matrices for all (A$$ \mathbf{A} $$) and genotyped (A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$) animals. The procedure ensures G$$ \mathbf{G} $$ and A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$ are compatible so that both matrices refer to the same genetic base ('tuning'). Then G$$ \mathbf{G} $$ is combined with a proportion of A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$ ('blending') to avoid singularity problems and to account for the polygenic component not accounted for by markers. This computational procedure has been implemented in the reverse order (blending before tuning) following the sequential research developments. However, blending before tuning may result in less optimal tuning because the blended matrix already contains a proportion of A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$. In this study, the impact of 'tuning before blending' was compared with 'blending before tuning' on genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effects and indirect predictions (IP) from ssGBLUP using American Angus Association and Holstein Association USA, Inc. data. Two slightly different tuning methods were used; one that adjusts the mean diagonals and off‐diagonals of G$$ \mathbf{G} $$ to be similar to those in A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$ and another one that adjusts based on the average difference between all elements of G$$ \mathbf{G} $$ and A22$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{22} $$. Over 6 million Angus growth records and 5.9 million Holstein udder depth records were available. Genomic information was available on 51,478 Angus and 105,116 Holstein animals. Average realized relationship estimates among groups of animals were similar across scenarios. Scatterplots show that GEBV, SNP effects and IP did not noticeably change for all animals in the evaluation regardless of the order of computations and when using blending parameter of 0.05. Formulas were derived to determine the blending parameter that maximizes changes in the genomic relationship matrix and GEBV when changing the order of blending and tuning. Algebraically, the change is maximized when the blending parameter is equal to 0.5. Overall, tuning G$$ \mathbf{G} $$ before blending, regardless of blending parameter used, had a negligible impact on genomic predictions and SNP effects in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]