Design of selection schemes to include tick resistance in the breeding goal for Hereford and Braford cattle

• Published in: Journal of animal science Vol. 95; no. 2; p. 572
• Main Authors: Reis, Â P, Boligon, A A, Yokoo, M J, Cardoso, F F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.2017
• Subjects: Animals; Body Weight; Breeding; Cattle; Cattle Diseases - genetics; Cattle Diseases - immunology; Cattle Diseases - prevention & control; Disease Resistance - genetics; Female; Genome - genetics; Genomics; Goals; Male; Phenotype; Selection, Genetic; Tick Infestations - genetics; Tick Infestations - immunology; Tick Infestations - prevention & control; Tick Infestations - veterinary; Ticks
• ISSN: 1525-3163; 1525-3163
• DOI: 10.2527/jas2016.0913

Ticks are one of the main causes of losses in cattle, causing economic impact by reducing productivity and fertility and by transmission of diseases. The objective of this study was to analyze the genetic gains obtained through different strategies to include traditional (EBV) or genomic EBV (GEBV) for tick count (TC) in selection indexes for Hereford and Braford cattle. Besides TC, we also considered traits currently included in the Delta G Breeding Program Index (DGI): preweaning gain, weaning conformation, weaning precocity, weaning muscling, postweaning gain, yearling conformation, yearling precocity, yearling muscling, and scrotal circumference. Genetic gain per generation (ΔG) was evaluated using the current DGI and including TC in 8 alternative scenarios with TC relative weightings of 10, 50, or 100% and using phenotype or GEBV. Genomic EBV accuracy () ranged between 0.1 and 0.9. As expected, increasing increases the accuracy of the index () for all scenarios in which GEBV were considered. As the relative weight of TC was increased to 50%, greater ΔG differences in relation to the baseline DGI ($53.03) scenario were observed when the GEBV information was included with equal to or greater than 0.7 only for TC (ΔG between $61.06 and $74.26) or equal to or greater than 0.5 for all traits (ΔG between $56.03 and $83.36). To achieve these accuracies for traits with low heritability, a large calibration data set would be required. Focusing only on TC, the availability of genomic information would be desirable to avoid the need to count ticks and the exposure of animals to parasitism risks. However, for = 0.7, the respective numbers for Hereford and Braford would be 4,703 and 6,522 animals. As expected, when comparing the relative index weights of 10, 50, and 100% for TC, the highest response to selection per generation (RS) for TC was in the scenario was with 100% relative weight and GEBV for this trait (SR = -0.09 SD with = 0.9). This would be the recommended scenario to form tick-resistant lines in Hereford and Braford cattle. However, with 50% relative weight for TC, including GEBV information for TC only or for all traits in index ( = 0.9), it should yield 93 or 84% of RS, respectively, compared to that obtained with full emphasis on TC (100% relative weight) and GEBV information. This indicates that in the presence of highly accurate GEBV, despite slightly slower gain for TC, indexes with 50% relative weight for TC are interesting alternatives to jointly improve tick resistance and other relevant traits.