Efficient ways to combine data from broiler and layer chickens to account for sequential genomic selection

In broiler breeding, superior individuals for growth become parents and are later evaluated for reproduction in an independent evaluation; however, ignoring broiler data can produce inaccurate and biased predictions. This research aimed to determine the most accurate, unbiased, and time-efficient approach for jointly evaluating reproductive and broiler traits. The data comprised a pedigree with 577K birds, 146K genotypes, phenotypes for three reproductive (egg production [EP], fertility [FE], hatch of fertile eggs [HF]; 9K each), and four broiler traits (body weight [BW], breast meat percent [BP], fat percent [FP], residual feed intake [RF]; up to 467K). Broiler data were added sequentially to assess the impact on the quality of predictions for reproductive traits. The baseline scenario (RE) included pedigrees, genotypes, and phenotypes for reproductive traits of selected animals; in RE2, we added their broiler phenotypes; in RE_BR, broiler phenotypes of nonselected animals, and in RE_BR_GE, their genotypes. We computed accuracy, bias, and dispersion of predictions for hens from the last two breeding cycles and their sires. We tested three core definitions for the algorithm of proven and young to find the most time-efficient approach: two random cores with 7K and 12K animals and one with 19K animals, containing parents and young animals. From RE to RE_BR_GE, changes in accuracy were null or minimal for EP (0.51 in hens, 0.59 in roosters) and HF (0.47 in hens, 0.49 in roosters); for FE in hens (roosters), it changed from 0.4 (0.49) to 0.47 (0.53). In hens (roosters), bias (additive SD units) decreased from 0.69 (0.7) to 0.04 (0.05) for EP, 1.48 (1.44) to 0.11 (0.03) for FE, and 1.06 (0.96) to 0.09 (0.02) for HF. Dispersion remained stable in hens (roosters) at ~0.93 (~1.03) for EP, and it improved from 0.57 (0.72) to 0.87 (1.0) for FE and from 0.8 (0.79) to 0.88 (0.87) for HF. Ignoring broiler data deteriorated the predictions’ quality. The impact was significant for the low heritability trait (0.02; FE); bias (up to 1.5) and dispersion (as low as 0.57) were farther from the ideal value, and accuracy losses were up to 17.5%. Accuracy was maintained in traits with moderate heritability (~0.3; EP and HF), and bias and dispersion were less substantial. Adding information from the broiler phase maximized accuracy and unbiased predictions. The most time-efficient approach is a random core with 7K animals in the algorithm for proven and young.