ArticleJDS communications2023
The importance of historically popular sires on the accuracy of genomic predictions of young animals in the US Holstein population.
Article in JDS communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing genetic evaluation of milk yield and composition using a genomic-polygenic model in smallholder dairy cattle farms in Thailand.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dairy industry is known for its extensive use of artificial insemination, which has resulted in a population where most animals can be traced back to only a few sires. Due to their relatedness to the population, old influential sires could still contribute to the accuracy of genomic predictions. The objective of the study was to identify the impact of historically influential sires on the recent population. This was tested by constructing a genomic relationship matrix using recursion with different sets of sires. Differences in prediction accuracies with different sets are indicative of how important each set is. Recursion coefficients linking young animals to those sets reveal the relative importance of specific sires to the prediction accuracy of recent animals. The data included ∼10 million scores for stature and fore udder attachment (FUA) measured from 1983. Genotypes of 569,404 animals were available. Sire sets included the 100 most popular sires born within different time periods. Computations were with single-step genomic BLUP. In general, the younger sires had higher prediction accuracies than the oldest sires, even though they generally have fewer progeny. The accuracy of evaluation for stature was increased from 0.54 with the most popular sires born before 1981 to 0.69 with sires born from 2001 to 2010, while the accuracy for FUA increased from 0.47 to 0.61. The accuracy achieved using the overall 100 most used sires was 0.66 for stature and 0.58 for FUA. All 100 sires from each period were combined in a subset to determine the importance of each sire relative to all 400 animals in the combined subset. The highest relative impact of a sire that was born within the different time sets was 1.97 for Valiant (before 1981), 1.94 for Blackstar (1981 to 1990), 4.38 for Shottle (1991 to 2000), and 3.09 for Planet (2001 to 2010). The 3 sires among the 400 with the greatest impact were Shottle, Goldwyn (3.73), and Planet. The relative impact of a sire was not strongly related to the number of progeny. For instance, the relative impact of Durham with 34K progeny was 2.29, whereas the impact of O Man with 15K progeny was 3.13. The impact of a sire is also influenced by whether it was used as a sire of sires. Results show that younger sires are more relevant to the accuracy of breeding value prediction in the recent population.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.