Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:27:18.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic correlations between temperament and breeding traits in Limousin heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2007

F. Phocas ,
X. Boivin ,
J. Sapa ,
G. Trillat ,
A. Boissy  and
P. Le Neindre
F. Phocas*
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, 78 352, Jouy-en-Josas, France
X. Boivin
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
J. Sapa
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, 78 352, Jouy-en-Josas, France
G. Trillat
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
A. Boissy
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores, 63122, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
P. Le Neindre
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37 380, Nouzilly, France
*
†Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the potential consequences of selection for less aggressive or active animals during handling by estimating genetic correlations between different criteria of temperament and Limousin heifer breeding traits. Data consisted of the records collected from 1992 to 2004 at the progeny test station of Limousin AI sires. Six traits recorded during the same behavioural test – the so-called docility test – were considered to describe the heifer's temperament: aggressiveness against the handler, running time and number of escapes per minute of test period in presence or absence of the handler and a synthetic docility score accounting for the five previous components. Eight breeding traits were also considered simultaneously in the joint analysis with the five elementary temperament components: weights at 12 months and after calving (for measuring heifer growth), age at first observed oestrus (for measuring puberty) and fertility (for measuring heifer reproductive performance), calving ease score and pelvic opening (for measuring calving performance), maternal behaviour at calf's birth and milk yield (for measuring the suckling ability of the primiparous cow). REML (co)variance estimates were derived using linear multitrait sire models. Estimates of heritability were in the range of values given in the literature. Estimates of genetic correlation between temperament traits indicated that, genetically, aggressive animals also attempt to escape a lot. Consequently, their elimination will reduce both working risk and handling time for the breeder. Genetic correlations between temperament traits and breeding traits ranged from zero to favourable estimates and confirmed the very few results of the literature indicating a slight trend of less fearful heifers also being more productive, mainly because of a higher reproduction and calving performance, and, to a lesser extent, because of higher maternal abilities such as behaviour at calf's birth and milk yield.

Keywords

beef cattledocilitygrowthreproductioncalving easematernal behaviourmilk production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 805 - 811
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Limousin Breeders Society Web Site. 2006. http://www.limousin.com.auGoogle Scholar
Bates, J. E. 1989. Concepts and measures of temperament. In Temperament in childhood. Kohnstamm, G. A., Bates, J. E. and Rothbart, M. Klevjord pp. 3–26. Wiley, NY.Google Scholar
Boissy, A., Fisher, A. D., Bouix, J., Hinch, G. N.Le Neindre, P. 2005. Genetics of fear in ruminant. Livestock Production Science 93: 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X. Le Neindre, P., Chupin, J. M., Garel, J. P. and Trillat, G. 1992. Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 20: 259–277.Google Scholar
Boivin, X.Le Neindre, P., Garel, J. P. and Chupin, J. M. 1994. Influence of breed and rearing management on cattle reactions during human handling. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 39: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, H. M. 1997. Measurements of temperament and their relationships with performance traits of beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65: 477–495.Google Scholar
Burrow, H. M. 2001. Variances and covariances between productive and adaptative traits and temperament in a composite breed of tropical beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 70: 213–233.Google Scholar
Dempster, E. R. and Lerner, I. M. 1950. Heritability of threshold characters. Genetics 35: 212–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donoghue, K. A., Sapa, J. and Phocas, F. 2006. Genetic relationships between measures of temperament in Australian and French Limousin cattle. Proceedings of the eighth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production13–18 August, 2006Belo HorizonteBrazil (In press).Google Scholar
Gauly, M., Mathiak, H., Hoffman, K., Kraus, M. and Erhardt, G. 2001. Estimating genetic variability in temperamental traits in German Angus and Simmental cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 109–119.Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, H. and Morris, C. A. 1984. Genetic and environmental effects on a temperament score in beef cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics 35: 723–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31: 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadarmideen, H. N., Thompson, R., Coffey, M. P. and Kossaibati, M. A. 2003. Genetic parameters and evaluations from single and multiple trait analysis of dairy cow fertility and milk production. Livestock Production Science 81: 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgour, R. J., Melville, G. J. and Greenwood, P. L. 2006. Individual differences in the reaction of beef cattle to situations invoving social isolation, close proximity of humans, restraint and novelty. Applied Animal Behaviour Science (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Neindre, P., Grignard, L., Trillat, G., Boissy, A., Menissier, F., Sapa, J. and Boivin, X. 2002. Docile Limousin cows are not poor mothers. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production19–23 August, 2002Montpelliercomm. 14–13.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P., Murphy, P. M., Boissy, A., Purvis, I. W., Orgeur, P., Bouix, J. and Bibé, B. 1998. Genetics of maternal ability in cattle and sheep. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production 1998Armidale, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P., Trillat, G., Sapa, J., Menissier, F., Bonnet, J. N. and Chupin, J. M. 1995. Individual differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2249–2253.Google Scholar
Matsunaga, M. E., Siva, J. A. de V. II, Toledo, L. M., Paranhos da Costa, M. J. R., Eler, J. P. and Ferraz, J. B. S. 2002. Genetic analysis of temperament in Nelore cattle. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production19–23 August, 2002Montpelliercomm. 14–16.Google Scholar
Meijering, A. and Gianola, D. 1985. Linear versus nonlinear methods of sire evaluation for categorical traits: a simulation study. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 17: 115–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. and Thompson, R. 1984. Bias in variance and covariance component estimators due to selection on a correlated trait. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 101: 33–50.Google Scholar
Moreno, C., Sorensen, D.Garcia-Cortés, L. A., Varona, L. and Altarriba, J. 1997. On biased inferences about variance components in the binary threshold model. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 29: 145–160.Google Scholar
Neumaier, A. and Groenveld, E. 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North American Limousin Foundation Web Site. 2006. http://www.nalf.org/programsGoogle Scholar
Paranhos da Costa, M. J. R., Piovezan, U., Cyrillo, J. N. S. G. and Razook, A. G. 2002. Genetic factors affecting cattle temperament in four breeds. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production19–23 August, 2002Montpelliercomm. 14–15.Google Scholar
Phocas, F. and Laloë, D. 2003. Evaluation models and genetic parameters for calving difficulty in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81: 933–938.Google Scholar
Phocas, F. and Sapa, J. 2004. Genetic parameters for growth, reproductive performance, calving ease and suckling performance in beef cattle heifers. Animal Science 79: 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapa, J., Donoghue, K. A. and Phocas, F. 2006. Genetic parameters between sexes for temperament traits in Limousin cattle. Proceedings of the eighth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production13–18 August, 2006Belo HorizonteBrazil (In press).Google Scholar
Sapa, J., Trillat, G., Longy, G., Le Neindre, P. and Ménissier, F. 1997. Variabilité génétique de la docilité contrôlée en station en race bovine Limousine, 4 èmes Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants4–5 Décembre 1997Paris, pp. 203–206.Google Scholar
Silva, B., Gonzalo, A. and Canon, J. 2002. Genetic parameters of behavioural traits in the bovine (Bos taurus). Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production19–23 August, 2002Montpelliercomm. 14–19.Google Scholar
Tier, B., Henshall, J. M. and McSweeny, J. M. 2001. Potential for improving the docility of Limousin cattle in Australia. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 14: 345–347.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M. V., Janczak, A. M., Visser, E. K. and Jones, R. B. 2006. Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar