Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:49:14.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic evaluation of beef sires used for crossing with dairy cows in the UK 2. Genetic parameters and sire merit predictions for calving survey traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. J. McGuirk ,
I. Going  and
A. R. Gilmour
B. J. McGuirk
Affiliation:
Genus, Bays Leap Farm, Heddon on the Wall, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 0JW
I. Going
Affiliation:
Genus, Bays Leap Farm, Heddon on the Wall, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 0JW
A. R. Gilmour
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Agricultural Research and Veterinary Centre, Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Genetic parameters were estimated for traits recorded in a calving survey for beef sires used in commercial dairy herds in England and Wales. The five traits included in the survey were calving difficulty score, calf mortality to 48 h after birth, gestation length, and subjectively assessed calf size and conformation. The data file examined included over 88 000 records, on 323 sires of eight beef sire breeds, namely Aberdeen Angus, Belgian Blue, Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolais, Hereford, Limousin, Piedmontese and Simmental.

Estimates of heritability and genetic and phenotypic correlations were obtained for all traits by REML procedures using a sire model. The effects of cow age, calf sex, year and season of the calving and sire breed were included in the model, together with interactions.

Heritability estimates were 0·09 (s.e. 0·01) for calving difficulty score, 0·32 (s.e. 0·03) for gestation length, 0·02 (s.e. 0·003) for mortality, 0·09 (s.e. 0·01) for calf size and 0·06 (s.e. 0·01) for calf conformation.

Heritability estimates for the scored categorical and binomial (mortality) traits were also obtained using threshold model analysis. As expected, these estimates were higher than the REML estimates; 0·16 (s.e. 0·01) for calving difficulty score, 0·08 (s.e. 0·01) for mortality, 0·14 (s.e. 0·01) for calf size and 0·09 (s.e. 0·01) for calf conformation. Calving difficulty score was strongly correlated genetically with calf size (-0·84), mortality (0·74) and calf conformation (-0·72), and moderately correlated with gestation length (0·26). Calf size and conformation were very highly correlated genetically (0·86), and both were also strongly correlated with mortality (-0·63 and -0·52 respectively). In all cases, the genetic correlations were stronger than the phenotypic correlations.

Sire genetic merit was predicted for all traits and the distribution of these predictions is described. Sire predictions of genetic merit for calving difficulty score on the underlying scale were backtransformed to predict the expected incidence of serious difficulties in future calvings and these predictions are illustrated for the major sire breeds.

Keywords

beef productioncalvinggenetic parameterssire evaluation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 47 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Edwards, J., Jobst, D., Hodges, J., Leyburn, M., O'Connor, L. K., Macdonald, A., Smith, G. F., Wood, P. 1966. The Charolais report. Milk Marketing Board.Google Scholar
Foulley, J. L., Menissier, F. and Gaillard, J. 1978. Parametres genetiques des races Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolaise and Limousin e utilisees en croisement pour la production de veaux de boucherie. Annales de Genetique et de Selection Animate 10: 377–390.Google Scholar
Gianola, D. 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54: 1079–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, A. R. 1994. Reg—A user's manual NSW Agriculture, occasional publication.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Anderson, R. D. and Rae, A. L. 1985. The analysis of binomial dat a by a generalized linear mixed model. Biometrika 72: 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P., Smith, C. and Wilton, J. W. 1994. Analysis of published genetic parameter estimates for beef production traits. 1. Heritability. Animal Breeding Abstracts 62: 309–338.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J. 1989. The estimation of genetic parameters for all-or-none and categorical traits. In Evolution and animal breeding (ed. Hill, W. G. and Mackay, T. F. C.), pp. 175–180. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Going, I. and Gilmour, A. R. 1994. Evaluating UK beef bulls used in dairy crossing for calving ease and calf quality. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 17, pp. 165–168.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Going, I. and Gilmour, A. R. 1998. The genetic evaluation of beef sires used for crossing with dairy cows in th e UK. 1. Sire breed and non-geneti c effects on calving survey traits. Animal Science 66: 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredi, E., San Cristobal, M. and Foulley, J. L. 1991. Some factors affecting the estimation of genetic parameters for cattle dystocia under a threshold model. Animal Production 53: 151–156.Google Scholar
Meijering, A. 1984. Dystocia an d stillbirth in cattle — a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11: 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menissier, F., Sapa, J., Foulley, J. L., Frebling, J. and Bonaiti, B. 1982. Comparison of different sire breeds crossed with Friesian cows: preliminary results. In Beef production from different dairy breeds and dairy breed crosses (ed. O'Ferrall, G. J. More), pp. 94–137. M. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. 1986. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate genetic parameters — in practice. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. 12, pp. 454–459.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J. 1976. Studies on calving difficulty, stillbirth and associated factors in Swedish cattle breeds. 3. Genetic parameters. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 26: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollak, E. J. and Freeman, A. E. 1976. Parameter estimation or dystocia and calf size in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 59: 1817–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaas, R. L., Zhao, Y. and Pollak, E. J. 1988. Describing interactions in dystocia scores with a threshold model. Journal of Animal Science 66: 396–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renand, G. 1985. Genetic parameters of French beef breeds used in crossbreeding for young bull production. 1. Live performance. Genetique, Selection, Evolution 17: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, J. R., Freeman, A. E. and Berger, P. J. 1981. Age of dam and maternal effects for dystocia in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 1603–1609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. 1990. Generalized linear models and application to animal breeding. In Advances in statistical methods for genetic improvement of livestock (ed. Gianola, D. and Hammond, K.), pp. 312–328. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, J. I., Misztal, I. and Gianola, D. 1988. Genetic analysis of dystocia and calf mortality in Israeli-Holsteins by threshold and linear models. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 2491–2501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed