Genetics and genomics of uniformity and resilience in livestock and aquaculture species: A review

Genetic control of residual variance offers opportunities to increase uniformity and resilience of livestock and aquaculture species. Improving uniformity and resilience of animals will improve health and welfare of animals and lead to more homogenous products. Our aims in this review were to summarize the current models and methods to study genetic control of residual variance, genetic parameters and genomic results for residual variance and discuss future research directions. Typically, the genetic coefficient of variation is high (median = 0.27; range 0–0.86) and the heritability of residual variance is low (median = 0.01; range 0–0.10). Higher heritabilities can be achieved when increasing the number of records per animal. Divergent selection experiments have supported the feasibility of selecting for high or low residual variance. Genomic studies have revealed associations in regions related to stress, including those from the heat shock protein family. Although the number of studies is growing, genetic control of residual variance is still poorly understood, but big data and genomics offer great opportunities.     

Genetic parameters for milk fatty acids,milk yield and quality traits of a Holstein cattle population reared under tropical conditions

Information about genetic parameters is essential for selection decisions and genetic evaluation. These estimates are population specific; however, there are few studies with dairy cattle populations reared under tropical and sub‐tropical conditions. Thus, the aim was to obtain estimates of heritability and genetic correlations for milk yield and quality traits using pedigree and genomic information from a Holstein population maintained in a tropical environment. Phenotypic records (n = 36 457) of 4203 cows as well as the genotypes for 57 368 single nucleotide polymorphisms from 755 of these cows were used. Covariance components were estimated using the restricted maximum likelihood method under a mixed animal model, considering a pedigree‐based relationship matrix or a combined pedigree‐genomic matrix. High heritabilities (around 0.30) were estimated for lactose and protein content in milk whereas moderate values (between 0.19 and 0.26) were obtained for percentages of fat, saturated fatty acids and palmitic acid in milk. Genetic correlations ranging from −0.38 to −0.13 were determined between milk yield and composition traits. The smaller estimates compared to other similar studies can be due to poor environmental conditions, which may reduce genetic variability. These results highlight the importance in using genetic parameters estimated in the population under evaluation for selection decisions.     

Assessing the accuracy of prediction for milk fatty acids by using a small reference population of tropical Holstein cows

Fatty acids (FA) have been related to effects on human health, sensory quality and shelf life of dairy products, cow's health and methane emission. However, despite their importance, they are not regularly measured in all dairy herds yet, which can affect the accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBV) for these traits. In this case, an alternative is to use genomic selection. Thus, the aim was to assess the use of genomic information in the genetic evaluation for milk traits in a tropical Holstein population. Monthly records (n = 36,457) of milk FA percentage, daily milk yield and quality traits from 4,203 cows as well as the genotypes of 755 of these cows for 57,368 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were used. Polygenic and genomic–polygenic models were applied for EBV prediction, and both models were compared through the EBV accuracy calculated from the prediction error and Spearman's correlation among EBV rankings. Prediction accuracy was assessed by using cross‐validation. In this case, the accuracy was the correlation between the genomic breeding values (GEBV) obtained as the sum of SNP effects and the EBV obtained in the polygenic model in each validation group. For all traits, the use of the genomic–polygenic model did not alter the animals' ranking, with correlations higher than 0.87. Nevertheless, through this model, the accuracy increased from 1.5% to 6.8% compared to the polygenic model. The correlations between GEBV and EBV varied from 0.52 to 0.68. Therefore, the use of a small group of genotyped cows in the genetic evaluation can increase the accuracy of EBV for milk FA and other traditional milk traits.