Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:57:45.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of genetic variation in the international Brown Swiss population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2013

G. M. Worede ,
F. Forabosco ,
B. Zumbach ,
V. Palucci  and
H. Jorjani
G. M. Worede*
Affiliation:
Interbull Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
F. Forabosco
Affiliation:
Interbull Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
B. Zumbach
Affiliation:
Interbull Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
V. Palucci
Affiliation:
Interbull Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
H. Jorjani
Affiliation:
Interbull Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†Present address: Department of Biology, Hawassa University, PO Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The international Brown Swiss cattle population pedigree was studied to measure genetic variations and to identify the most influential animals. Twenty-two countries provided pedigree information on 71 497 Brown Swiss bulls used for artificial insemination (AI). The total number of animals with the pedigree is 181 094. The mean inbreeding coefficient for the pedigree population was 0.77%. There was, in most cases, an increase in the mean inbreeding coefficient, with the highest value at 2.89% during the last 5-year period (2000 to 2004). The mean average relatedness for the pedigree population was 1.1%. The effective population size in 2004 was 204. There was notable variation between average generation intervals for the four parental pathways. The longest average generation interval, at 8.73 years, was observed in the sire–son pathway. The average generation interval for the whole population was 6.53 years. Most genetically influential individuals were sires. The highest contributing founder was a sire with a 3.22% contribution, and the highest contributing founder dam made a contribution of 1.75%. The effective number of founders and the effective number of ancestors were 141 and 88, respectively. The study showed that genetic variation within the pedigree population has been decreasing over recent years. Increasing the number of AI bulls with a low individual coefficient of inbreeding could help to maintain a good level of genetic variation in the Brown Swiss population.

Keywords

Brown Swissgenetic variationinbreeding coefficientgeneration intervaleffective number of founders
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1060 - 1066
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Bijma, P 2003. Long-term genetic contributions: prediction of rates of inbreeding and genetic gain in selected populations. PhD dissertation, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Boichard, D, Maignel, L, Verrier, E 1997. The value of using probabilities of gene origin to measure genetic variability in a population. Genetics Selection Evolution 29, 5–23.Google Scholar
Bozzi, R, Franci, O, Forabosco, F, Pugliese, C, Crovetti, A, Filippini, F 2006. Genetic variability in three Italian beef cattle breeds derived from pedigree information. Italian Journal of Animal Science 5, 129–137.Google Scholar
Brown Swiss Association 2006. Brown Swiss History and Fact. Retrieved May 28, 2010, from http://www.brownswissusa.com/history.asp.Google Scholar
Caballero, A 1994. Developments in the prediction of effective population size. Heredity 73, 657–679.Google Scholar
Cassell, BG, Adamec, V, Pearson, RE 2003. Effect of incomplete pedigrees on estimates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression for days to first service and summit milk yield in Holsteins and Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2967–2976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickson, WF, Lush, JL 1933. Inbreeding and the genetic history of the Rambouillet sheep in America. Journal of Heredity 24, 19–23.Google Scholar
Dunner, S, Checa, ML, Gutierrez, JP, Martin, JP, Canon, J 1998. Genetic analysis and management in small populations: the Asturcon pony as an example. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 397–405.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1998. Secondary Guidelines for Development of Natural Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://dad.-fao.org/en/refer/library/guidelin/sml-popn.pdf.Google Scholar
Franklin, IR, Frankham, R 1998. How large must populations be to retain evolutionary potential? Animal Conservation 1, 69–70.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, JP, Goyache, F 2005. A note on ENDOG: a computer program for analyzing pedigree information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 357–360.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, JP, Altarriba, J, Diaz, C, Quintanilla, R, Canon, J, Piedrafita, J 2003. Pedigree analysis of eight Spanish beef cattle breeds. Genetics Selection Evolution 35, 43–45.Google Scholar
Hammami, H, Croquet, C, Stoll, J, Rekik, B, Gengler, N 2007. Genetic diversity and joint-pedigree analysis of two importing Holstein populations. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3530–3541.Google Scholar
James, JW 1972. Computation of genetic contributions from pedigrees. Theoretical Application of Genetics 42, 272–273.Google Scholar
Lacy, RC 1989. Analysis of founder representation in pedigrees: founder equivalents and founder genome equivalents. Zoo Biology 8, 111–123.Google Scholar
Márquez, GC, Garrick, DJ 2007. Selection intensities, generation intervals and population structure of Red Angus cattle. American Society of Animal Science 58, 55–58.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Luo, Z 1992. Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genetics Selection Evolution 24, 305–313.Google Scholar
Mc Parland, S, Kearney, JF, Rath, M, Berry, DP 2007. Inbreeding trends and pedigree analysis of Irish dairy and beef cattle populations. Journal of Animal Science 85, 322–331.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J, Forabosco, F, Jakobsen, JH 2009. Monitoring sustainability of international dairy breeds. Book of Abstracts of the 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Barcelona, Spain, 31pp.Google Scholar
Peixoto, MGCD, Poggian, CF, Verneque, RS, Egito, AA, Carvalho, MRS, Penna, VM, Bergmann, JAG, Viccini, LF, Machado, MA 2010. Genetic basis and inbreeding in the Brazilian Guzerat (Bos indicus) subpopulation selected for milk production. Livestock Science 131, 168–174.Google Scholar
Quinton, M, Smith, C, Goddard, ME 1992. Comparison of selection methods at the same level of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1060–1067.Google Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Brotherstone, S, Visscher, PM 1999. Quantifying genetic contributions to a dairy cattle population using pedigree analysis. Livestock Production Science 60, 359–369.Google Scholar
Sölkner, J, Filipic, L, Hampshire, N 1998. Genetic variability of populations and similarity of subpopulations in Austrian cattle breeds determined by analysis of pedigrees. Animal Science 67, 249–256.Google Scholar
Sorensen, AC, Sorensen, MK, Berg, P 2005. Inbreeding in Danish dairy cattle breeds. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1865–1872.Google Scholar
Vu Tien khang, J 1983. Methodes d'analyse des donnes demographiques et genealogiques dans les populations d'animaux domestiques. Genetics Selection Evolution 15, 263–298.Google Scholar
Wang, J 1997. More efficient breeding systems for controlling inbreeding and effective population size in animal populations. Journal of Heredity 79, 591–599.Google Scholar
Wiggans, GR, Van Raden, PM, Zuurbier, J 1995. Calculation and use of inbreeding coefficients for genetic evaluation of United States dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 1584–1590.Google Scholar
Wright, S 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.Google Scholar