Heritability and Repeatability of Superovulatory Responses in Holstein Population in Hokkaido, Japan

  • Asada, Y. (The Graduate School of Dairy Science, Rakuno Gakuen University) ;
  • Terawaki, Y. (Rakuno Gakuen University Dairy Science Institute)
  • Received : 2001.11.27
  • Accepted : 2002.04.15
  • Published : 2002.07.01


The aim of this study was to estimate heritability and repeatability for the number of embryos and transferable embryos collected per flush in Holstein population in Hokkaido, Japan. Data consisted of 306 MOET (Multiple Ovulation and Embryo Transfer) treatments on 224 Holstein cows from 1997 to 2000. Variance components for these traits were estimated using the REML procedure. The model included only non-genetic factors that were significant at the 0.05 level, through using generalized linear models, maximum likelihood methods, and stepwise regression procedure as fixed effects and sire and residual for heritabilities, donor and residual for repeatabilities as random effects. The factor identified as important in determining the results was the donor''s estrous condition after superovulation. Heritabilities for the number of embryos and transferable embryos collected per flush were 0.14 and 0.09, respectively. The corresponding repeatabilities were 0.43 and 0.32, respectively. These results show that it was difficult to genetically improve these traits, thus, environmental and physical factors affecting the donor must be improved. These results also show that it is necessary to take the donor''s estrous condition after superovulation and repeatabilities for the number of embryos and transferable embryos collected per flush into account when the genetic gains and inbreeding rates for MOET breeding schemes are predicted by a computer simulation.


Holstein;Superovulatory Responses;Heritability;Repeatability


  1. Genstat 5 committee. 2000. Genstat 5 Release 4.2 The Guide to Genstat. VSN International Ltd. Oxford. UK.
  2. Lamberson, W. R. and V. A. Lamberth. 1986. Repeatability of response to superovulation in Brangus cows. Theriogenology, 26:643-648.
  3. Lohuis, M. M., C. Smith and J. C. M Dekkers. 1993. MOET results from a dispersed hybrid nucleus programme in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod., 57:369-378.
  4. Nicholas, F. W. and C. Smith. 1983.Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Anim. Prod.. 36:341-353.
  5. Smith, C. 1984. Rates of genetic change in farm livestock. Research and Development in Agriculture. 1:79-85.
  6. Terawaki, Y. and Y. Asada. 2001. Effects of different methods for determining the number of transferable embryos on genetic gain and inbreeding coefficient in a Japanese Holstein MOET breeding population. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14(5):597-602.
  7. Veerkamp, R. F., E. P. C. Koenen and G. De Jong. 2001. Genetic correlations among body condition score, yield, and fertility in first- parity cows estimated by random regression models. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2327-2335.
  8. Woolliams, J. A., Z. W. Luo, B. Villanueva, D. Waddington, P. J. Broadbent, W. A. C. McCauley and J. J. Robinson. 1995. Analysis of factors affecting superovulatory responses in ruminants. J. Agric. Sci. 124:61-70.
  9. Land, R. B. and W. G. Hill. 1975. The possible use of superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle to increase response to selection. Anim. Prod. 21:1-12.
  10. Isogai, T. 1992. Effects of season, age at calving, time after calving and interval of treatment the embryo production in superovulated Holstein donors. J. Reproduction and Development. 38:j1-j6.
  11. Villanueva, B., J. A. Woolliams and G. Smith. 1995. The effect of improved reproductive performance on genetic gain and inbreeding in MOET breeding schemes for beef cattle. Genetique Selection Evolution 27:347-363.
  12. Villanueva, B. and G. Simm. 1994. The use and value of embryo manipulation techniques in animal breeding. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Prod. Guelph. Vol.20: 200-207.
  13. Ruane, J. and R. Thompson. 1991. Comparison of simulated and theoretical results in adult MOET nucleus schemes for dairy cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 28:1-20.
  14. Hasler, J. F., A. D. McCauley, E. C. Schermerhorn and R. H. Foote. 1983. Superovulatory responses of Holstein cows. Theriogenology. 19:83-99.
  15. Keller, D. S. and G. Teepker. 1990. Effect of variability in response to superovulation on donor cow selection differentials in nucleus breeding schemes. J. Dairy Sci. 73:549-554.
  16. Tonhati, H., R. B. Lobo and H. N. Oliveira. 1999. Repeatability and heritability of response to superovulation in Holstein cows. Theriogenology 51:1151-1156.
  17. Asada, Y. and Y. Terawaki. 2000. Adaptation of distribution on number of transferable embryos per treatment. Anim. Sci. and Agric. Hokkaido. 42:418-426.
  18. Dematawewa, C. M. B. and P. J. Berger. 1998. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for 305-day yield, fertility, and survival in Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2700-2709.
  19. Donaldson, L. E. 1984. Effect of age of donor cows on embryo donor production. Theriogenology. 21:963-967.
  20. McCullagh, P. and J. A. Nelder. 1983. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall. New York. 1st. ed.
  21. Bastidas, P. R. and R. D. Randel. 1987. Effects on repeated superovulation and flushing on reproductive performance of Bos indicus cows. Theriogenology, 28:827-835.

Cited by

  1. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a predictive marker of embryo production in cattle? vol.22, pp.7, 2010,
  2. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictive endocrine marker for embryo production in the goat vol.142, pp.6, 2011,
  3. Determination of anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations in blood as a tool to select Holstein donor cows for embryo production: from the laboratory to the farm vol.24, pp.7, 2012,
  4. Short communication: Genetic correlations between number of embryos produced using in vivo and in vitro techniques in heifer and cow donors vol.99, pp.10, 2016,
  5. Genetic analysis of superovulatory response of Holstein cows in Canada vol.99, pp.5, 2016,