Accuracy of genomic-polygenic estimated breeding value for milk yield and fat yield in the Thai multibreed dairy population with five single nucleotide polymorphism sets

  • Received : 2018.10.28
  • Accepted : 2019.02.12
  • Published : 2019.09.01


Objective: The objectives were to compare variance components, genetic parameters, prediction accuracies, and genomic-polygenic estimated breeding value (EBV) rankings for milk yield (MY) and fat yield (FY) in the Thai multibreed dairy population using five single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) sets from GeneSeek GGP80K chip. Methods: The dataset contained monthly MY and FY of 8,361 first-lactation cows from 810 farms. Variance components, genetic parameters, and EBV for five SNP sets from the GeneSeek GGP80K chip were obtained using a 2-trait single-step average-information restricted maximum likelihood procedure. The SNP sets were the complete SNP set (all available SNP; SNP100), top 75% set (SNP75), top 50% set (SNP50), top 25% set (SNP25), and top 5% set (SNP5). The 2-trait models included herd-year-season, heterozygosity and age at first calving as fixed effects, and animal additive genetic and residual as random effects. Results: The estimates of additive genetic variances for MY and FY from SNP subsets were mostly higher than those of the complete set. The SNP25 MY and FY heritability estimates (0.276 and 0.183) were higher than those from SNP75 (0.265 and 0.168), SNP50 (0.275 and 0.179), SNP5 (0.231 and 0.169), and SNP100 (0.251and 0.159). The SNP25 EBV accuracies for MY and FY (39.76% and 33.82%) were higher than for SNP75 (35.01% and 32.60%), SNP50 (39.64% and 33.38%), SNP5 (38.61% and 29.70%), and SNP100 (34.43% and 31.61%). All rank correlations between SNP100 and SNP subsets were above 0.98 for both traits, except for SNP100 and SNP5 (0.93 for MY; 0.92 for FY). Conclusion: The high SNP25 estimates of genetic variances, heritabilities, EBV accuracies, and rank correlations between SNP100 and SNP25 for MY and FY indicated that genotyping animals with SNP25 dedicated chip would be a suitable to maintain genotyping costs low while speeding up genetic progress for MY and FY in the Thai dairy population.


  1. Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001;157:1819-29.
  2. Hayes B, Bowman P, Chamberlain A, Verbyla K, Goddard M. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genet Sel Evol 2009;41:51.
  3. Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor TJ. Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J Dairy Sci 2010;93:743-52.
  4. Jattawa D, Elzo MA, Koonawootrittriron S, Suwanasopee T. Comparison of genetic evaluations for milk yield and fat yield using a polygenic model and three genomic-polygenic models with different sets of SNP genotypes in Thai multibreed dairy cattle. Livest Sci 2015;181:58-64.
  5. Weigel KA, de los Campos G, Gonzalez-Recio O, et al. Predicting ability of direct genomic values for lifetime net merit of Holstein sires using selected subsets of single nucleotide polymorphism markers. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:5248-57.
  6. Moser G, Khatkar MS, Hayes BJ, Raadsma HW. Accuracy of direct genomic values in Holstein bulls and cows using subsets of SNP markers. Genet Sel Evol 2010;42:37.
  7. Koonawootrittriron S, Elzo MA, Thongprapi T. Genetic trends in a Holstein x other breeds multibreed dairy population in Central Thailand. Livest Sci 2009;122:186-92.
  8. Sargent FD, Lytton VH, Wall OG. Test interval method of calculating dairy herd improvement association records. J Dairy Sci 1968;51:170-9.
  9. Koonawootrittriron S, Elzo MA, Tumwasorn S, Sintala W. Prediction of 100-d and 305-d milk yields in a multibreed dairy herd in Thailand using monthly test-day records. Thai J Agric Sci 2001;34:163-74.
  10. TMD. The climate of Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Thai Meteorological Department. Available from: https://www.tmd.
  11. Sargolzaei M, Chesnais JP, Schenkel FS. A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 2014;15:478.
  12. Wang H, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Muir WM. Genomewide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. Genet Res 2012;94:73-83.
  13. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia, 2018 [cited 2018 June 19]. Available from:
  14. Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I. Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:4648-55.
  15. Tsuruta S. Average Information REML with several options including EM-REML and heterogeneous residual variances; 2014 [cited 2018 June 19]. Available from:
  16. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:4656-63.
  17. Meyer K, Houle D. Sampling based approximation of confidence intervals for functions of genetic covariance matrices. In: Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 2013; 2013 August 20-23:Napier, New Zealand. 2013. p. 523-6.
  18. Haile-Mariam M, Nieuwhof GJ, Beard KT, Konstatinov KV, Hayes BJ. Comparison of heritabilities of dairy traits in Australian Holstein-Friesian cattle from genomic and pedigree data and implications for genomic evaluations. J Anim Breed Genet 2013;130:20-31.
  19. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Van Tassell GR, et al. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:16-24.
  20. Sun C, VanRaden PM, Cole JB, Connell JRO. Improvement of prediction ability for genomic selection of dairy cattle by including dominance effects. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e103934.
  21. Petrini J, Iung LHS, Rodriguez MAP, et al. Genetic parameters for milk fatty acids, milk yield and quality traits of a Holstein cattle population reared under tropical conditions. J Anim Breed Genet 2016;133:384-95.
  22. Gao H, Christensen OF, Madsen P, et al. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two singlestep blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genet Sel Evol 2012;44:8.
  23. Okeno TO, Kosgey IS, Kahi AK. Genetic evaluation of breeding strategies for improvement of dairy cattle in Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod 2010:42;1073-9.
  24. Mokhtari MS, Moradi SM, Nejati JA, Rosa GJM. Genetic relationship between heifers and cows fertility and milk yield traits in first-parity Iranian Holstein dairy cows. Livest Sci 2015;182:76-82.
  25. Pritchard T, Coffey M, Mrode R, Wall E. Genetic parameters for production, health, fertility and longevity traits in dairy cows. Animal 2013;7:34-46.
  26. Sneddon NW, Lopez-Villalobos N, Davis SR, Hickson RE, Shalloo L. Genetic parameters for milk components including lactose from test day records in the New Zealand dairy herd. New Zealand J Agric Res 2015;58:97-107.
  27. Szyda J, Zukowski K, Kaminski S, Zarnecki A. Testing different single nucleotide polymorphism selection strategies for prediction of genomic breeding values in dairy cattle based on low density panels. Czech J Anim Sci 2013;58:136-45.
  28. VanRaden PM, Tooker ME, O'Connell JR, Cole JB, Bickhart DM. Selecting sequence variants to improve genomic predictions for dairy cattle. Genet Sel Eval 2017;49:32.
  29. Wiggans GR, Cole JB, Hubbard SM, Sonstegard SM. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: the USDA experience. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2017;5:309-27.
  30. Elzo MA, Mateescu RG, Johnson DD, et al. Genomic-polygenic and polygenic predictions for nine ultrasound and carcass traits in Angus-Brahman multibreed cattle using three sets of genotypes. Livest Sci 2017;202:58-66.