Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:27:38.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some factors affecting the estimation of genetic parameters for cattle dystocia under a threshold model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. J. Manfredi ,
M. San Cristobal  and
J. L. Foulley
E. J. Manfredi
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative, CNRZ-INRA, 78352, Jouy-en-Josas, Cedex, France
M. San Cristobal
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative, CNRZ-INRA, 78352, Jouy-en-Josas, Cedex, France
J. L. Foulley
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative, CNRZ-INRA, 78352, Jouy-en-Josas, Cedex, France
Get access

Abstract

Genetic parameters for dystocia in the Main-Anjou breed were estimated. Data consisted of 28 178 birth records collected between 1978 and 1989 in 995 herds, with 161, 71 and 12 415 sires, maternal grandsires and dams, respectively, represented. Original scores (1 through 5) were collapsed in order to set two dystocia definitions: dystocia 1 (scores 1+2 v. 3+4+5) and dystocia 2 (scores 1 v. 2+3+4+5). Four models were proposed for genetic parameter estimation: (1) fixed effects plus sire effects; (2) model 1 plus maternal grandsire effect; (3) model 2 plus dam within maternal grandsire effects; (4) same as model 3 but a random effect ‘herds’ replaced a fixed effect ‘regions’. Two methods of fitting models were applied: marginal maximum likelihood and the ‘tilde-hat’ approach. Estimates of genetic parameters by the two methods were similar. Models ignoring maternal effects overestimated the heritability of direct effects especially in the case of dystocia 2. Dystocia definition was responsible for the greatest difference among estimated genetic parameters. Possible reasons for this are discussed. When analysing large data sets, it is recommended judiciously to collapse dystocia categories and to apply approximate statistical procedures to complete models including maternal effects.

Keywords

dystociagenetic parametersthreshold models
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 151 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Cue, R. I. 1990. Genetic parameters for calving ease in Ayrshires. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cue, R. I. and Hayes, F. 1985. Correlations of various direct and maternal effects for calving ease. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 374–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dempster, E. R. and Lerner, I. M. 1950. Heritability of threshold characters. Genetics, USA 35: 212–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djemali, M., Berger, P. and Freeman, A. E. 1987. Ordered categorical sire evaluation for dystocia in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2374–2384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foulley, J. L., Gianola, D. and Im, S. 1990. Genetic evaluation for discrete polygenic traits in animal breeding. In Advances in statistical methods for genetic improvement livestock (ed. Gianola, D. and Hammond, K.), pp. 361–396. Springler-Verlag, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulley, J. L. and Im, S. 1989. Probability statements about the transmitting ability of progeny-testing sires for an all-or-none trait with an application to twinning in cattle. Genetique, Selection et Evolution 21: 247–267.Google Scholar
Gianola, D. and Foulley, J. L. 1983. Sire evaluation for ordered categorical data with a threshold model. Genetique, Selection et Evolution 15: 201–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagger, C. and Hofer, A. 1990. Genetic analysis of calving traits in the Swiss Black and White, Braunvieh and Simmental breeds by REML and MAPP procedures. Livestock Production Science 24: 93–107.Google Scholar
Harville, D. A. and Mee, R. W. 1984. A mixed model procedure for analyzing ordered categorical data. Biometrics 40: 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoschele, I, Gianola, D. and Foulley, J. L. 1987. Estimation of variance components with quasi-continuous data using bayesian methods. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 104: 334–349.Google Scholar
Klassen, D. J., Cue, R. I. and Hayes, J. F. 1990. Estimation of repeatability of calving ease in Canadian Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 205–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manfredi, E. 1990. Analyse génétique des conditions de naissance chez les bovins par le modéle á seuils. Thése 3éme cycle, Universite de Paris XI, Orsay, France.Google Scholar
Manfredi, E., Ducrocq, V. and Foulley, J. L. 1991. Genetic analysis of dystocia in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 1715–1723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijering, A. 1984. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle — a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11: 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipsson, J., Foulley, J. L., Lederer, J., Liboriussen, T. and Osinga, A. 1979. Sire evaluation standards and breeding strategies for limiting dystocia and stillbirth. Report of an EEC/EAAP working group. Livestock Production Science 6: 111–127.Google Scholar
Renand, G., Jans, L. and Gaillard, J. 1990. Sire evaluation for direct effects on dystocia by linear and threshold models. Proceedings of the 4th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, Vol. XIII, pp. 465–467.Google Scholar
Simianer, H. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1989. Estimation of covariance components between one continuous and one binary trait. Génétique, Sélection et Evolution 21: 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, A. K. W., Wilton, J. W. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1977. Application of a scoring procedure and transformations to dairy type classification and beef ease of calving categorical data. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Raden, P. M. and Jung, Y. C. 1988. A general purpose approximation to restricted maximum likelihood: the tilde-hat approach. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 187–194.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. D. 1972. Estimation of heritability of threshold characters. Journal of Dairy Science 55: 218–225.Google 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
Willham, R. L. 1963. The covariance between relatives for characters composed of components contributed by related animals. Biometrics 19: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. 1934. The results of crosses between inbred strains of guinea pigs, differing in number of digits. Genetics, USA 19: 537–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed