Status as of: PLEASE ENTER A DATE (2016-06-08)

Form GENO

DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL GENOMIC EVALUATION SYSTEMS

Country (or countries)	DFS (Denmark, Sweden and Finland)	
Main trait group1
NOTE! Only one trait group per form!	
Production traits	
Breed(s)	Holstein, RDC, Jersey	
Trait definition(s) and unit(s) of measurement2
Attach an appendix if needed	Protein, Fat, Milk	
Source of genotypes (chips used)	Illumina 50K and from lower density imputed on the 50K chip	
Imputation method for missing genotypes	Fimpute	
Propagation of genomic information to non-genotyped descendants and ancestors	No	
Animals included in reference population (males, females, countries included, total number)	Holstein, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland, 31,800 males, 14,900 DFS females
RDC, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, 7,600 males, 19,600 DFS females
Jersey, Denmark, US 2500 males, 13,500 DFS females 	
Source of phenotypic data (DYD, deregressed proofs, national EBVs and/or MACE evaluations)	
Deregressed proofs from national EBV’s and MACE evaluation	
Other criteria (data edits) for inclusion of records	Animals having genotypes inconsistent with their parents excluded from genomic evaluation. Genotyped bulls with r2ia>.60 based on daughters
Females required to have phenotypic records	
Criteria for extension of records (if applicable)		
Sire categories	Genotyped bulls	
Genomic model (linear, Bayesian, polygenic effect, genotypes or haplotypes)	Linear model without polygenic effect –SNPBLUP	
Blending of direct genomic value (DGV) with traditional EBV	Bivariate blending of DGV and EBV (Taskinen et al., 2013; Mäntysaari and I. Strandén , 2010)  
Standard deviation of DGV is scaled according to r2(DGV) see computation of reliability	
Environmental effects in the genetic evaluation model	None	
Adjustment for heterogeneous variance in evaluation model	None in SNPBLUP model	
Computation of genomic reliability	As described in Strandén and Christensen (2011)	
Blending of foreign/Interbull information in evaluation	MACE EBVs on DFS scale are used as phenotypic data for genomic evaluation for foreign bulls without a DFS EBV.	
Genetic parameters in the evaluation	Same as traditional genetic evaluation	
System validation	Routine checks on genotype and phenotype data: Mean standard deviation and correlation of DGV, EBV or GEBV within and between genomic evaluations. 
Interbull genomic validation method via GEBVtest software is applied on a regular basis.	
Expression of genetic evaluations
If standardised (e.g. RBV), give standardisation formula in the appendix	RBV – see traditional publication of EBVs	
Definition of genetic reference base	Same as conventional genetic evaluation	
Labeling of genomic evaluations	G used as a label for all breeding values including genomic information	
Criteria for official publication of evaluations	Genotyped AI bulls > 10 month of age	
Number of evaluations / publications per year	12 per year	
Use in total merit index	Same as traditional evaluation	
Anticipated changes in the near future		
Key reference on methodology applied	Lund et al. Genetics Selection Evolution 2011, 43:43 A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions
E.A. Mäntysaari and I. Strandén , 2010 Use of bivariate EBV-DGV model to combine genomic and conventional breeding value evaluations. World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1-6 2010, Leipzig, Germany.
Strandén, I and O. F. Christensen. 2011. Allele coding in genomic evaluation. Gen. Sel. Evol. 42:25.
M. Taskinen et al. 2013. Comparison of model reliabilities from single-step and bivariate blending methods. Interbull Bull. 47:246-251, Nantes, France
M. Taskinen et al. (2014). Comparison of breeding values form single-step and bivariate blending methods. World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 1-6 2014, Vancouver, Canada	
Key organisation: name, address, phone, fax, e-mail, web site	Nordic Cattle Genetic Evaluation, Agro Food Park 15, 8200 Aarhus N, +45874050
E-mail: gap@seges.dk	
1) Either: Production (e.g. milk, fat, protein), Conformation, Health (e.g. mastitis resistance, milk somatic cell, resistance to diseases other than mastitis), Longevity, Calving (e.g. stillbirth, calving ease), Female fertility (e.g. non-return rate, interval between reproductive events, number of AI’s, heat strength), Workability (e.g. milking speed, temperament), Beef production, Efficiency (e.g. body weight, energy balance, body conditioning score), or Other traits.

Form GENO	Appendix GENO

Parameters used in genetic evaluation

Country (or countries): DFS		
Main trait group: Production		
Breed (repeat as necessary): 	HOL	

Trait	Definition	ITBa	h2b	genetic
varianceb	official proof
standardisation formulac	
Protein						

						

						

						

						

						
						
a	Indicate, with X, traits that are submitted to Interbull for international genetic evaluations.
b	If repeated records are treated as separate traits, provide heritability estimates and genetic variances separately for each trait, as well as for all traits pooled, i.e. for the trait submitted to Interbull.
c	Expressed as follows:
StandEval=((eval-a)/b)*c+d where a=mean of the base adjustment, b=standard deviation of the base, c=standard deviation of expression (include sign if scale is reversed), and d=base of expression.