Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Calving Ease by Heifers and Cows Using Multi-trait Threshold Animal Models with Bayesian Approach

- Journal title : Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
- Volume 15, Issue 8, 2002, pp.1085-1090
- Publisher : Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
- DOI : 10.5713/ajas.2002.1085

Title & Authors

Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Calving Ease by Heifers and Cows Using Multi-trait Threshold Animal Models with Bayesian Approach

Lee, D.H.;

Lee, D.H.;

Abstract

Genetic parameters for birth weights (BWT), calving ease scores observed from calves born by heifers (CEH), and calving ease scores observed from calves born by cows (CEC) were estimated using Bayesian methodology with Gibbs sampling in different threshold animal models. Data consisted of 77,458 records for calving ease scores and birth weights in Gelbvieh cattle. Gibbs samplers were used to obtain the parameters of interest for the categorical traits in two univariate threshold animal models, a bivariate threshold animal model, and a three-trait linear-threshold animal model. Samples of heritabilities and genetic correlations were calculated from the posterior means of dispersion parameters. In a univariate threshold animal model with CEH (model 1), the posterior means of heritabilities for calving ease was 0.35 for direct genetic effects and 0.18 for maternal genetic effects. In the other univariate threshold model with CEC (model 2), the posterior means of heritabilities of CEC was 0.28 for direct genetic effects and 0.18 for maternal genetic effects. In a bivariate threshold model with CEH and CEC (model 3), heritability estimates were similar to those in unvariate threshold models. In this model, genetic correlation between heifer calving ease and cow calving ease was 0.89 and 0.87 for direct genetic effect and maternal genetic effects, respectively. In a three-trait animal model, which contained two categorical traits (CEH and CEC) and one continuous trait (BWT) (model 4), heritability estimates of CEH and CEC for direct (maternal) genetic effects were 0.40 (0.23) and 0.23 (0.13), respectively. In this model, genetic correlation estimates between CEH and CEC were 0.89 and 0.66 for direct genetic effects and maternal effects, respectively. These estimates were greater than estimates between BWT and CEH (0.82 and 0.34) or BWT and CEC (0.85 and 0.26). This result indicates that CEH and CEC should be high correlated rather than estimates between calving ease and birth weight. Genetic correlation estimates between direct genetic effects and maternal effects were -0.29, -0.31 and 0.15 for BWT, CEH and CEC, respectively. Correlation for permanent environmental effects between BWT and CEC was -0.83 in model 4. This study can provide genetic evaluation for calving ease with other continuous traits jointly with assuming that calving ease from first calving was a same trait to calving ease from later parities calving. Further researches for reliability of dispersion parameters would be needed even if the more correlated traits would be concerned in the model, the higher reliability could be obtained, especially on threshold model with property that categorical traits have little information.

Keywords

Calving Ease;Genetic Parameter;Multivariate Threshold Model;Bayesian Method;

Language

English

References

1.

Bennett, G. L. and K. E. Gregory. 1996. Genetic (co)variances among birth-weight, 200-day weight, and postweaning gain in composites and parental breeds of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2598-2611.

2.

Bennett, G. L. and K. E. Gregory. 2001. Genetic (co)variances for calving difficulty score in composite and parental populations of beef cattle: I. Calving difficulty score, birth weight, weaning weight, and postweaning gain. J. Anim. Sci. 79:45-51.

3.

Carnier, P., A. Albera, R. Dal Zotta, A. F. Groen, M. Bona and G. Bittante. 2000. Genetic parameters for direct and maternal calving ability over parities in Piemontese cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2515-2524.

4.

Geman, S. and D. Geman. 1984. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intel. 6:721-741.

5.

Gianola, D. 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. J. Anim. Sci. 54:1079-1096.

6.

Gianola, D. and J. L. Fouley. 1983. Sire evaluation for ordered categorical data with a threshold model. Genet. Sel. Evol. 15:201-244.

7.

Hoeschele, I., B. Tier and H. U. Graser. 1995. Multiple-trait genetic evaluation for one polychotomous trait and several continuous traits with missing data and unequal models. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1609-1627.

8.

Janss, L. L. G. and J. L. Foulley. 1993. Bivariate analysis for one continuous and one threshold dichotomous trait with unequal design matrices and an application to birth weight and calving difficulty. Livest. Prod. Sci. 33:183-198.

9.

Lee, D. H. and J. K. Bertrand. 2002. Investigation of genotype${\times}$ country interactions for growth traits in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 80:330-337.

10.

Luo, M. F., P. J. Boettcher, L. R. Schaeffer and J. C. M. Dekkerst. 2001. Bayesian inference for categorical traits with an application to variance component estimation. J. Dairy Sci. 84:694-704.

11.

McGuirk, B. J., I. Going and A. R. Gilmour. 1998. 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. Anim. Sci. 66:47-54.

12.

Misztal, I. 2001. BLUPF90 family of programs. http://nce.ads.uga.edu/~ignacy/newprograms.html. Accessed Dec 3, 2001.

13.

Misztal, I., D. Gianola and J. L. Fouley. 1989. Computing aspects of nonlinear method of sire evaluation for categorical data. J. Dairy Sci. 72:1557-1568.

14.

Ramirez-Valverde, R., I. Misztal and J. K. Bertrand. 2001. Studies to implement genetic evaluation for calving difficulty in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 79:333-338.

15.

Renand, G., L. L. G. Janss and J. Gaillard. 1990. Sire evaluation for direct effects on dystocia by linear and threshold models. Proc. 4th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. 465-467.

16.

Ritchie, H. D. and P. T. Anderson. 2001. Calving difficulty in beef cattle: Part I - Factors affecting dystocia. Beef Improvement Federation. Accessed Sep. 17, 2001.

17.

Sorensen, D. A., S. Andersen, D. Gianola and I. Korsgaard. 1995. Bayesian inference in threshold models using Gibbs sampling. Genet. Sel. Evol. 27:229-249.

18.

VanTassell, C. P., L. D. VanVleck and K. E. Gregory. 1998. Bayesian analysis of twinning and ovulation rates using a multiple-trait threshold model and Gibbs sampling. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2048-2061.

19.

Varona, L., I. Misztal and J. K. Bertrand. 1999. Threshold-linear versus linear-linear analysis of birth weight and calving ease using an animal model. I. Variance components estimation. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1994-2002.

20.

Weller, J. I., I. Misztal and D. Gianola. 1988. Genetic analysis of dystocia and calf mortality in Israeli-Holsteins by threshold and linear models. J. Dairy Sci. 71:2491-2501.