CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyReproductive Physiology in Livestock

Genetic mechanisms underlying feed utilization and implementation of genomic selection for improved feed efficiency in dairy cattle

Open access
Brito, Luiz F., Oliveira, Hinayah R., Houlahan, Kerry, Fonseca, Pablo A.S., Lam, Stephanie, Butty, Adrien M., Seymour, Dave J., Vargas, Giovana +6 more·2020·Canadian Journal of Animal Science
DOI 10.1139/cjas-2019-0193
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The economic importance of genetically improving feed efficiency has been recognized by cattle producers worldwide. It has the potential to considerably reduce costs, minimize environmental impact, optimize land and resource use efficiency, and improve the overall cattle industry’s profitability. Feed efficiency is a genetically complex trait that can be described as units of product output (e.g., milk yield) per unit of feed input. The main objective of this review paper is to present an overview of the main genetic and physiological mechanisms underlying feed utilization in ruminants and the process towards implementation of genomic selection for feed efficiency in dairy cattle. In summary, feed efficiency can be improved via numerous metabolic pathways and biological mechanisms through genetic selection. Various studies have indicated that feed efficiency is heritable, and genomic selection can be successfully implemented in dairy cattle with a large enough training population. In this context, some organizations have worked collaboratively to do research and develop training populations for successful implementation of joint international genomic evaluations. The integration of “-omics” technologies, further investments in high-throughput phenotyping, and identification of novel indicator traits will also be paramount in maximizing the rates of genetic progress for feed efficiency in dairy cattle worldwide.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/cjas-2019-0193

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Genetic manipulation of rumen microbiota is possible through different techniques as host genetics influences some heritable microbial traits.

    “However, genetic manipulation of rumen microbiota is also possible through different techniques as host genetics influences some heritable microbial traits (81–83).”

    From Phytogenic Additives Can Modulate Rumen Microbiome to Mediate Fermentation Kinetics and Methanogenesis Through Exploiting Diet–Microbe Interaction (2020) · cites this paper as [82]

    The sections on heritability estimates and host–microbiome interactions report heritable microbial features and links to host genetics. The role-of-rumen-microbiome section describes genetic selection for a desirable profile as a potential, not an established means of manipulating rumen microbiota through different techniques. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Benson, A.K., Kelly, S.A., Legge, R., Ma, F., Low, S. J., Kim, J., Zhang, M., Oh, P. L., Nehrenberg, D., Hua, K., Kachman, S. D., Moriyama, E. N., Walter, J., Peterson, D. A., and Pomp, D. 2010. Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic Canovas, A., Casellas, J., Thomas, M., Medrano, J.F. 2017. Applying new genomic technologies to accelerate genetic improvement in beef and dairy cattle. Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 22:377-383
  2. de Jong, G., Schopen, G.C.B., Bouwmeester-Vosman, J.J., van der Linde, C., de Haas, Y., and Veerkamp, R.F. 2019. Feed intake genetic evaluation: porgress and an index for saved feed costs. Interbull Bulletin No. 55, Cincinatti, OH, USA.
  3. Erbe, M., Hayes, B.J., Matukumalli, L.K., Goswami, S., Bowman, P.J., Reich, C.M., Mason, B.A., and Goddard, M.E. 2012. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. J. Dairy Sci., 95(7):4114-4129.
  4. Pryce, J.E., Arias, J., Bowman, P.J., Davis, S.R., Macdonald, K.A., Waghorn, G.C., Wales, W.J., Williams, Y.J., Spelman, R.J., and Hayes, B.J. 2012. Accuracy of genomic predictions of residual feed intake and 250-day bodyweight in growing heifers using 625,000 SNP markers. J. Dairy Sci., 95(4):2108-2119.
  5. Rosen, B., Bickhart, D., Schnabel, R., Koren, S., Elsik, C., Zimin, A., Dreischer, C., Schultheiss, S., Hall, R., Schroeder, S., Van Tassell, C., Smith, T., and Medrano, J. 2018. Modernizing the Bovine Reference Genome Assembly. In: Proc. World Congr. Genet. Appl. to Livest. Prod. 802, Auckland, New Zealand.
  6. Wolc, A., Arango, J., Settar, P., Fulton, J.E., O'Sullivan, N.P., Preisinger, R., Habier, D., Fernando, R., Garrick, D.J., Hill, W.G., and Dekkers, J.C.M. 2012. Genome-wide association analysis and genetic architecture of egg weight and egg uniformity in layer chickens. Anim. Genet. 43(1):87-96.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brito, L. F., Oliveira, H. R., Houlahan, K., Fonseca, P. A. S., Lam, S., Butty, A. M., Seymour, D. J., Vargas, G., Chud, T. C. S., Silva, F. F., Baes, C. F., Cánovas, A., Miglior, F., & Schenkel, F. S.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
  • Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • Universidade Federal de Viçosa (BR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Baes, Christine F.
  • Miglior, Filippo
ORCID
Venue
Canadian Journal of Animal Science
Publisher
Canadian Science Publishing
Published
2020-12-01
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
587-604
ISSN
  • 0008-3984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1918-1825
DOI
10.1139/cjas-2019-0193
OpenAlex
W3049342574
Cited by
53
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Aarhus Universitet
  • Genome Canada
  • Dairy Farmers of Canada
  • Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • Ontario Genomics
  • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
  • Genome Alberta
  • Agricultural Research Service
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  • Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Reproductive Physiology in Livestock
Keywords
feed efficiency, genomic selection, dairy cattle, ruminant metabolism, heritability, training population, high-throughput phenotyping, omics technologies, indicator traits, genetic advance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review