4.7 Article

Using Genomics to Measure Phenomics: Repeatability of Bull Prolificacy in Multiple-Bull Pastures

Journal

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11070603

Keywords

DNA pooling; parentage; reproduction

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigated using genomics to measure the prolificacy of bulls in multiple-bull pastures for commercial beef production. Results showed high repeatability of prolificacy, with age-class and scrotal circumference accounting for less than 5% of variation. Simulated estimation using pooled genotypes was accurate.
Phenotypes are necessary for genomic evaluations and management. Sometimes genomics can be used to measure phenotypes when other methods are difficult or expensive. Prolificacy of bulls used in multiple-bull pastures for commercial beef production is an example. A retrospective study of 79 bulls aged 2 and older used 141 times in 4-5 pastures across 4 years was used to estimate repeatability from variance components. Traits available before each season's use were tested for predictive ability. Sires were matched to calves using individual genotypes and evaluating exclusions. A lower-cost method of measuring prolificacy was simulated for five pastures using the bulls' genotypes and pooled genotypes to estimate average allele frequencies of calves and of cows. Repeatability of prolificacy was 0.62 +/- 0.09. A combination of age-class and scrotal circumference accounted for less than 5% of variation. Simulated estimation of prolificacy by pooling DNA of calves was accurate. Adding pooling of cow DNA or actual genotypes both increased accuracy about the same. Knowing a bull's prior prolificacy would help predict future prolificacy for management purposes and could be used in genomic evaluations and research with coordination of breeders and commercial beef producers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available