Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Genetic parameters for direct and maternal genetic components of calving ease in Korean Holstein Cattle using animal models

  • Mahboob Alam (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Jae-Gu Lee (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Chang-Gwon Dang (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Seung-Soo Lee (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Sang-Min Lee (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Ha-Seung Seong (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Mina Park (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Jaebeom Cha (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Eun-Ho Kim (Animal Breeding and Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Hyungjun Song (Dairy Cattle Improvement Center of NH-Agree Business Group, NACF) ;
  • Seokhyun Lee (Dairy Cattle Improvement Center of NH-Agree Business Group, NACF) ;
  • Joonho Lee (GENEAPPS)
  • Received : 2024.04.29
  • Accepted : 2024.08.30
  • Published : 2024.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We investigated genetic parameters of calving ease (CE) using several animal models in Korean Holstein and searched for suitable models for routine evaluation of CE. Methods: Two phenotypic datasets of CE (DS5 and DS10) on first-parity Korean Holstein calves were prepared. DS5 and DS10 included at least 5 and 10 CE records per herd-year level and comprised 117,921 and 80,389 observations, respectively. The CE phenotypes ranged from 1 to 4, from a normal to extreme difficulty calving scale. The CE was defined as a trait of the calf. The BLUPF90+ software was used for (co)variances estimation through four animal models with a maternal effect (M1 to M4), where all models included effects of a fixed calf-sex, a fixed dam calving age (covariate), and one or more fixed contemporary group (CG) terms. The CG effects were different across models-a herd-year-season (M1, HYS), a herd-year and year-season (M2, HY+YS), a herd-year and season (M3, HY+S), HY+S), and a herd and year-season (M4, H+YS). H+YS). Results: Direct heritability (h2) estimates of CE ranged from 0.005 to 0.234 across models and datasets. Maternal h2 values were low (0.001 to 0.090). Genetic correlations between direct and maternal effects were strongly negative to lowly positive (-0.814 to 0.078), further emphasizing its importance in CE evaluation models. These genetic parameter estimates also indicate slower future selection progress of CE in Korean Holsteins. The M1 fitted many levels with fewer observations per level deriving unreliable parameters, and the M4 did not account for confounded herd and animal structures. The M2 and M3 were deemed more realistic for implementation, and they were better able to account for data structure issues (incompleteness and confounding) than other models. Conclusion: As the pioneering study to employ animal models in Korean Holstein CE evaluation, our findings hold significant potential for this breed's future and routine evaluation development.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was performed with the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development ("Project title: Improvement of national livestock breeding system and advancement of genetic evaluation technology, Project No. PJ016703042024") from the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This study was also supported by the RDA Research Associate Fellowship Program of National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dematawewa CMB, Berger PJ. Effect of dystocia on yield, fertility, and cow losses and an economic evaluation of dystocia scores for Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 1997;80:754-61. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75995-2 
  2. Carnier P, Albera A, Dal Zotto R, Groen AF, Bona M, Bittante G. Genetic parameters for direct and maternal calving ability over parities in piedmontese cattle. J Anim Sci 2000;78:2532-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.78102532x 
  3. Mee JF. Managing the dairy cow at calving time. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2004;20:521-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2004.06.001 
  4. Buckley F, O'Sullivan K, Mee JF, Evans RD, Dillon P. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight, and reproduction in spring-calved holstein-friesians. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:2308-19. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73823-5 
  5. Fries R, Ruvinsky A. The genetics of cattle. 1st ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1999. 
  6. Meijering A. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle - a review of causes, relations and implications. Livest Prod Sci 1984;11:143-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(84)90057-5 
  7. Eriksson S, Nasholm A, Johansson K, Philipsson J. Genetic parameters for calving difficulty, stillbirth, and birth weight for Hereford and Charolais at first and later parities. J Anim Sci 2004;82:375-83. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.822375x 
  8. Jamrozik J, Fatehi J, Kistemaker GJ, Schaeffer LR. Estimates of genetic parameters for Canadian Holstein female reproduction traits. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:2199-208. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72895-2 
  9. Varona L, Misztal I, Bertrand JK. Threshold-linear versus linear-linear analysis of birth weight and calving ease using an animal model: I. Variance component estimation. J Anim Sci 1999;77:1994-2002. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7781994x 
  10. Mujibi FDN, Crews DH. Genetic parameters for calving ease, gestation length, and birth weight in Charolais cattle. J Anim Sci 2009;87:2759-66. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1141 
  11. Gianola D. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. J Anim Sci 1982;54:1079-96. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1982.5451079x 
  12. Phocas F, Laloe D. Evaluation models and genetic parameters for calving difficulty in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2003;81:933-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.814933x 
  13. Eaglen SAE, Coffey MP, Woolliams JA, Wall E. Evaluating alternate models to estimate genetic parameters of calving traits in United Kingdom holstein-friesian dairy cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2012;44:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-44-23 
  14. Lee DH. Estimation of genetic parameters for calving ease by heifers and cows using multi-trait threshold animal models with Bayesian approach. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002;15:1085-90. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1085 
  15. Alam M, Dang CG, Choi TJ, Choy YH, Lee JG, Cho KH. Genetic parameters of calving ease using sire-maternal grandsire model in Korean holsteins. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2017;30:1225-33. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0322 
  16. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, et al. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs [Internet]. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia; c2014 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://nce.ads.uga.edu/html/projects/programs/docs/blupf90_all8.pdf 
  17. Eaglen SAE, Bijma P. Genetic parameters of direct and maternal effects for calving ease in dutch holstein-friesian cattle. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:2229-37. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1654 
  18. Houle D, Meyer K. Estimating sampling error of evolutionary statistics based on genetic covariance matrices using maximum likelihood. J Evol Biol 2015;28:1542-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12674 
  19. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis [Internet]. NY, USA: Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. Available from: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org 
  20. Salimi MH, Hossein-Zadeh NG, Shadparvar AA, Eghbal AR. Genetic evaluation of dystocia and its relationship with productive and reproductive traits in holstein cows. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu 2017;30:126-37. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rccp.v30n2a04 
  21. Ghiasi H, Khaldari M, Taherkhani R. Genetic parameters and calving ability index for direct and maternal calving difficulty and stillbirth in iranian holstein cows. Livest Sci 2014;165:22-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.04.021 
  22. Roughsedge T, Amer PR, Thompson R, Simm G. Genetic parameters for a maternal breeding goal in beef production. J Anim Sci 2005;83:2319-29. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.83102319x 
  23. Steinbock L, Nasholm A, Berglund B, Johansson K, Philipsson J. Genetic effects on stillbirth and calving difficulty in Swedish Holsteins at first and second calving. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:2228-35. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73813-2 
  24. Hansen M, Misztal I, Lund MS, Pedersen J, Christensen LG. Undesired phenotypic and genetic trend for stillbirth in danish holsteins. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:1477-86. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73299-3 
  25. Robinson DL. Models which might explain negative correlations between direct and maternal genetic effects. Livest Prod Sci 1996;45:111-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(96)00002-4 
  26. Meyer K. Bias and sampling covariances of estimates of variance components due to maternal effects. Genet Sel Evol 1992;24:487. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-24-6-487 
  27. Philipsson J. Studies on calving difficulty, stillbirth and associated factors in Swedish cattle breeds. Acta Agric Scand 1976;26:211-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015127609435090 
  28. Weeks DL, Williams DR. A note on the determination of connectedness in an N-way cross classification. Technometrics 1964;6:319-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1964.10490188 
  29. Fernando RL, Gianola D, Grossman M. Identifying all connected subsets in a two-way classification without interaction. J Dairy Sci 1983;66:1399-402. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(83)81951-1