Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T18:23:25.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters for growth, reproductive performance, calving ease and suckling performance in beef cattle heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

F. Phocast  and
J. Sapa
F. Phocast
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, 78 352 Jouy-en-Josas Cedex, France
J. Sapa
Affiliation:
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, 78 352 Jouy-en-Josas Cedex, France
Get access

Abstract

There is considerable concern about the consequences on fitness-related traits of using narrow breeding objectives for production traits. The aim of this study was to assess the potential consequences of selection for growth in French beef cattle breeds by estimating genetic correlations between growth, reproduction, calving and suckling traits of Charolais, Limousin and Blonde d’Aquitaine heifers. Data consisted of the records collected from 1985 to 2002 in progeny test stations that were used in the genetic evaluation of 284 Charolais, 125 Limousin and 118 Blonde d’Aquitaine AI sires. Seven traits were considered simultaneously in the analysis: weights at 18 months and after calving (for measuring heifer growth), sexual precocity and fertility (for measuring heifer reproductive performance), calving difficulty score and pelvic opening (for measuring calving ease) 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. They were very similar in the Charolais and Blonde d’Aquitaine breeds, and rather different for reproductive and suckling performance in the Limousin breed. Estimates were about 0·35 for heifer growth traits and about 0·15 for calving difficulty score in the three breeds. In the Charolais and Blonde d’Aquitaine breeds, estimates of heritability were 0·15 for sexual precocity and 0·05 for heifer fertility. These estimates were close to zero in the Limousin breed. Heritabilities of pelvic opening and milk yield were, respectively, 0·2 and 0·6 in the Limousin breed and around 0·3 in the other two breeds. Genetic correlations between traits concerning the same ability (as, for instance, weight at 18 months and weight at calving) were high and, in general, similar among breeds. Genetic correlations between heifer growth, reproductive traits, calving ease and suckling performance were nil or slightly favourable in the three breeds. Consequently, past selection mainly directed towards increasing growth seems not to have adversely affected the efficiency of female reproduction and the maternal abilities of French specialized beef cattle breeds.

Keywords

beef cattlecalvingfertilitygrowthmilk production
Type
Breeding genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , August 2004 , pp. 41 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Bennett, G. L. and Gregory, K. E. 2001. Genetic (co)variances for calving difficulty score in composite and parental populations of beef cattle. II. Reproductive, skeletal, and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 79: 52–59.Google Scholar
Bourdon, R. M. and Brinks, J. S. 1982. Genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships among gestation length, birth weight, growth traits and age at first calving in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 55: 543–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dechow, C. D., Rogers, G. W. and Clay, J. S. 2002. Heritability and correlations among body condition score loss, body condition score, production and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 3062–3070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dematawewa, C. M. B. and Berger, P. J. 1998. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for 305-day yield, fertility and survival in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2700–2709.Google Scholar
De Rouen, S. M., Franke, D. E., Morrisson, D. G., Wyatt, W. E., Coombs, D. F., White, T. W., Humes, P. E. and Greene, B. B. 1994. Prepartum body condition and weight influences on reproductive performance of first-calf beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1119–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmour, A. R., Cullis, B. R. and Welham, S. J. 2000. ASREML reference manual. NSW Agriculture, Orange, Australia.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Thompson, R. and Cullis, B. R. 1995. Average information REML, an efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51: 1440–1450.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1995. Genetic and phenotypic (co)variances for production traits of female populations of purebred and composite beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2235–2242.Google Scholar
Johnston, D. J. and Bunter, K. L. 1996. Days to calving in Angus cattle: genetic and environmental effects, and covariances with other traits. Livestock Production Science 45: 13–22.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.Google Scholar
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P., Smith, C. and Wilton, J. W. 1994. Analyses of published genetic parameter estimates for beef production traits. 1. Heritability. Animal Breeding Abstracts 62: 309–338.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J., Boichard, D. A., McAllister, A. J., Lin, C. Y., Nadarajah, K., Batra, T. R., Roy, G. L. and Vesely, J. A. 1992. Genetics of growth, feed intake and milk yield in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 3145–3154.Google Scholar
Luesakul-Reodecha, C., Martin, T. G. and Nelson, L. A. 1986. Effects of long-term selection for 365-day weight on maternal performance of beef cows. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, USA, vol. XII, pp. 205–209.Google Scholar
MacNeil, M. D., Cundiff, L. V., Dinkel, C. A. and Koch, R. M. 1984. Genetic correlations among sex-limited traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58: 1171–1180.Google Scholar
Masilo, B. S., Stevenson, J. S., Schalles, R. R. and Shirley, J. E. 1992. Influence of genotype and yield and composition of milk on interval to first postpartum ovulation in milked beef and dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 70: 379–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijering, A. and Gianola, D. 1985. Linear versus nonlinear methods of sire evaluation for categorical traits: a simulation study. Génétique, Sélection, Évolution 17: 115–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercadante, M. E. Z., Packer, I. U., Razook, A. G., Cyrillo, J. N. S. G. and Figueiredo, L. A. 2003. Direct and correlated responses to selection for yearling weight on reproductive performance of Nelore cows. Journal of Animal Science 81: 376–384.Google Scholar
Meyer, K., Carrick, M. J. and Donnelly, B. J. P. 1994. Genetic parameters for milk production of Australian Beef cows and weaning weight of their calves. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1155–1165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K., Hammond, K., Mackinnon, M. J. and Parnell, P. F. 1991. Estimates of covariances between reproduction and growth in Australian beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3533–3543.Google Scholar
Mialon, M. M., Renand, G., Krauss, D. and Ménissier, F. 1999. Puberty in Charolais heifers in relation to growth rate. 2. Genetic variability. Annales de Zootechnie 48: 427–434.Google Scholar
Mialon, M. M., Renand, G., Krauss, D. and Ménissier, F. 2000. Genetic variability of the length of postpartum anoestrus in Charolais cows and its relationship with age at puberty. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 32: 403–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mialon, M. M., Renand, G., Krauss, D. and Ménissier, F. 2001.Genetic relationship between cyclic ovarian activity in heifers and cows and beef traits in males. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 33: 273–287.Google Scholar
Moore, R. K., Kennedy, B. W., Schaeffer, L. R. and Moxley, J. E. 1990. Relationships between reproduction traits, age and body weight at calving and days dry in first lactation Ayrshires and Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 835–842.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
Oltenacu, P. A., Frick, A. and Lindhé, B. 1991. Relationship of fertility to milk yield in Swedish cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 264–268.Google Scholar
Phocas, F., Bloch, C., Chapelle, P., Bécherel, F., Renand, G. and Ménissier, F. 1998. Developing a breeding objective for a French purebred beef cattle selection programme. Livestock Production Science 57: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phocas, F., Colleau, J. J. and Ménissier, F. 1995. Expected efficiency for growth in a French beef cattle breeding scheme. 1. Multistage selection of bulls used in artificial insemination. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle 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., Vinet, A. and Renand, G. 2002. Genetic variability of reproductive traits in Charolais cows. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier, France, CD-ROM communication no. 02–19.Google Scholar
Raheja, K. L., Burnside, E. B. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1989. Relationships between fertility and production in Holstein dairy cattle in different lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2670–2678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rege, J. E. O. and Famula, T. R. 1993. Factors affecting calving date and its relationship with production traits of Hereford dams. Animal Production 57: 385–395.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. L. 1996a. Estimation and interpretation of direct and maternal genetic parameters for weights of Australian Angus cattle. Livestock Production Science 45: 1–11.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. L. 1996b. Models which might explain negative correlations between direct and maternal genetic effects. Livestock Production Science 45: 111–122.Google Scholar
Roman, R. M. and Wilcox, C. J. 2000. Bivariate animal model estimates of genetic, phenotypic and environmental correlations for production, reproduction and somatic cells in Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 829–835.Google Scholar
Scholtz, M. M and Roux, C. Z. 1984. Correlated responses to selection for growth, size and efficiency. Proceedings of the second world congress for sheep and beef cattle breeding, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 433–443.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Steane, D. E. and Wray, N. R. 1990. Developments in beef cattle breeding programmes in Europe. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, pp. 231–243.Google Scholar
Smith, B. A., Brinks, J. S. and Richardson, G. V. 1989. Estimation of genetic parameters among reproductive and growth traits in yearling heifers. Journal of Animal Science 67: 2886–2891.Google Scholar
Splan, R. K., Cundiff, L. V. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1998. Genetic parameters for sex-specific traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2272–2278.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R. F., Koenen, E. P. C. and Jong, G.de. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield and fertility in first-parity cows estimated by random regression models. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2327–2335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed