Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:01:17.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic evaluation of UK Holstein Friesian sires for calving ease and related traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

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, Orange Agricultural Institute, Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2000, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Records were analysed on more than 75 000 calvings by 685 Holstein-Friesian bulls tested in commercial dairy herds in England and Wales. The data were collected from 1988 to 1994. The traits analysed were the degree of difficulty at calving, assessed from no difficulty to serious difficulty, calf mortality to 48 h, gestation length and a subjective assessment of calf size. Information was available for the percentage Holstein genes in the sire, dam age (heifer or mature), sex of the calf and the year and month of the calving for all records, while lactation number of the dam and the regional location of the herd were also recorded in 1993 and 1994 (14988 records). Estimates of heritability and genetic and phenotypic correlations were obtained for all traits by restricted maximum likelihood (REML) procedures using a sire model, while also fitting the effects of dam age, calf sex, year and season of calving and significant interations.

Heifers had more difficult calvings, higher calf losses and shorter gestations than mature cows while seriously difficult calvings and mortality were higher for male calves (all P < 0·05). Summer months were associated with lower incidences of difficult calvings, lower mortality and shorter gestations. Heritability estimates were 0·05 (s.e. <0·01) for calving difficulty score, 0·45 (s.e. 0·02) for gestation length, 0·02 (s.e. <0·01) for mortality and 0·08 (s.e. <0·01) for calf size score. 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; 0·12 (s.e. 0.01) for calving difficulty score, 0·08 (s.e. 0·01) for mortality and 0·14 (s.e. 0·01) for calf size score. Calving difficulty score was genetically correlated with calf size score (-0.81), mortality (0.40) and gestation length (0.34) and calf size score was moderately correlated with mortality (-0.40). In all cases, the genetic correlations were stronger than the corresponding phenotypic correlations.

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

Keywords

calvinggenetic effectsheritabilityHolstein Friesian
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , April 1999 , pp. 413 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Berger, P. J. 1994. Genetic predictions for calving ease in the United States: data, models and use by the dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 1146–1153.Google Scholar
Dematawewa, C. M. B. and Berger, P. J. 1997. Effect of dystocia on yield, fertility, and cow losses and an economic evaluation of dystocia scores for Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 754–761.CrossRefGoogle 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, New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Anderson, R. D. and Rae, A. L. 1985. The analysis of binomial data by a generalized linear mixed model. Biometrika 72: 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H.E. 1996. Analysis of categorical calving traits using linear and threshold models and the estimation of genetic correlations between type, production and calving traits in Holstein Friesian cattle. M.Sc. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J. and Gimbert, A. 1996. The Genus sire improvement programme. British Cattle Breeders Club Digest 51: 1–4.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J. and Going, I. 1996. The presentation of calving survey information on Holstein Friesian sires. Proceedings of Interbull annual meeting, Eindhoven, Holland, June 1996. Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Going, I. and Gilmour, A. R. 1995. The evaluation of Holstein Friesian sires for calving ease in the UK. Proceedings of Interbull annual meeting, Prague, September 1995. Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Going, I. and Gilmour, A. R. 1998a. The genetic evaluation of beef sires used for crossing with dairy cows in the UK. 1. Sire breed and non-genetic effects on calving survey traits. Animal Science 66: 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Going, I. and Gilmour, A. R. 1998b. 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. Animal Science 66: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredi, E. J., 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
Martinez, M. L., Freeman, A. E. and Berger, P. J. 1983. Genetic relationship between calf livability and calving difficulty in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 1494–1502.Google Scholar
Mei Jering, A. 1984. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle — a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 2: 143–177.Google Scholar
Meijering, A. and Gianola, D. 1985. Linear versus nonlinear methods of sire evaluations for categorical traits: a simulation study. Génétique, Sélection, Evolution 17: 115–132.Google 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
Monteiro, L.S. 1969. The relative size of calf and dam and the frequency of calving difficulties. Animal Production 11: 293–306.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.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.Google Scholar