Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:06:56.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic correlation of longevity with growth, post-mortem, docility and some morphological traits in the Pirenaica beef cattle breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2011

L. Varona ,
C. Moreno  and
J. Altarriba
L. Varona*
Affiliation:
Unidad de Genética Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, C. Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
C. Moreno
Affiliation:
Unidad de Genética Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, C. Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
J. Altarriba
Affiliation:
Unidad de Genética Cuantitativa y Mejora Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, C. Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
*
†E-mail: lvarona@unizar.es
Get access

Abstract

Survival or longevity is an economically relevant trait in cattle. However, it is not currently included in cattle selection criteria because of the delayed recording of phenotypic data and the high computational demand of survival techniques under proportional hazard models. The identification of longevity-correlated traits that can be early registered in lifetime would therefore be very useful for beef cattle selection processes. The aim of this study was to estimate the genetic correlation of survival (SURV) with: growth – birth weight (BW), weight at 120 days (W120), weight at 210 days (W210); carcass – cold carcass weight (CCW), conformation (CON), fatness (FAT) and meat colour (COL); teat morphology – teat thickness (TT), teat length (TL) and udder depth (UD); leg morphology – forward (FL) and backward legs (BL); milk production (MILK) and docility (DOC). In the statistical analysis, SURV was measured in discrete-time intervals and modelled via a sequential threshold model. A series of independent bivariate Bayesian analyses between cow survival and each recorded trait were carried out. The posterior mean estimates (and posterior standard deviation) for the heritability of SURV was 0.05 (0.01); and for the relevant genetic correlations with SURV were 0.07 (0.04), 0.12 (0.05), 0.10 (0.05), 0.15 (0.05), −0.18 (0.06), 0.33 (0.06) and 0.27 (0.15) for BW, W120, W210, CCW, CON, FAT and COL, respectively.

Keywords

beef cattleBayesian analysissurvivalcorrelated response
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 873 - 879
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Albert, JH, Chib, S 2001. Sequential ordinal modeling with applications to survival data. Biometrics 57, 829–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altarriba, J, Yagüe, G, Moreno, C, Varona, L 2009. Exploring the possibilities of genetic improvement from traceability data: an example in the Pirenaica beef cattle. Livestock Science 125, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, FF, Cardellino, RA, Campos, LT 2004. (Co)Variance components and genetic parameters of post-weaning traits in Angus cattle. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 33, 313–319.Google Scholar
CEE no. 2930/81 1981. Community scale for the classification of carcass of adult bovine animals, Official publications of the European communities, Luxemburg, L-2985.Google Scholar
Cox, DR 1972. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series B 34, 187–220.Google Scholar
Damgaard, LH, Korgsgaard, IR 2006. A bivariate quantitative genetic model for a linear Gaussian trait and a survival trait. Genetics Selection Evolution 38, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGroot, BJ, Keown, JF, Van Vleck, LD, Marotz, EL 2002. Genetic parameters and responses of linear type, yield traits, and somatic cell scores to divergent selection for predicted transmitting ability for type in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1578–1585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, G, Vollema, AR, Van der Beck, S, Harbers, A 1999. Breeding value for functional longevity in the Netherlands. Interbull Bulletin 21, 68–72.Google Scholar
Ducrocq, V 1999. Extension of survival analysis models to discrete measures of longevity. Interbull Bulletin 21, 41–48.Google Scholar
Ducrocq, V, Casella, G 1996. A Bayesian analysis of mixed model survival models. Genetics Selection Evolution 28, 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrocq, V, Quaas, RL, Pollak, EJ, Casella, G 1988. Length of productive life of dairy cows. 2. Variance component estimation and sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 3070–3079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forabosco, F, Bozzi, R, Filippini, F, Boettcher, P, Van Arendonk, JAM, Bijma, P 2006. Linear model vs. survival analysis for genetic evaluation of sires for longevity in Chianina beef cattle. Livestock Science 101, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forabosco, F, Groen, AF, Bozzi, R, Van Arendonk, JAM, Filippini, F, Boettcher, P, Bijma, P 2004. Phenotypic relationships between longevity, type traits and production in Chianina beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 6, 1572–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, AE, Smith, AFM 1990. Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of American Statistical Association 85, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Recio, O, Alenda, R 2007. Genetic relationship of discrete-time survival with fertility and production in dairy cattle using bivariate models. Genetics Selection Evolution 39, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Recio, O, Chang, YM, Gianola, D, Weigel, KA 2005. Number of inseminations to conception in Holstein cows using censored records and time-dependent covariates. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3655–3662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kocak, S, Tekerli, M, Ozbeyaz, C, Yuceer, B 2007. Environmental and genetic effects on birth weight and survival rate in Holstein calves. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 31, 241–246.Google Scholar
Koots, KR, Gibson, JP, Smith, C, Wilton, JW 1994. Analyses of published genetic parameter estimates for beef production traits. 2. Phenotypic and genetic correlations. Animal Breeding Abstract 62, 825–853.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P, Trillat, G, Sapa, J, Menissier, F, Bonnet, JN, Chupin, JM 1995. Individual differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2249–2253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantovani, R, Cassandro, M, Contiero, B, Albera, A, Bittante, G 2010. Genetic evaluation of type traits in hypertrophic Piemontese cows. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3504–3512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melton, BE 1995. Conception to consumption: the economics of genetic improvement. In Proceedings of Beef Improvement Federation, Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Sheridan, Wyoming, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar
Newman, S, Morris, CA, Baker, RL, Nicoll, GB 1992. Genetic improvement of beef cattle in New Zealand: breeding objectives. Livestock Production Science 32, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phocas, F, Sapa, J 2004. Genetic parameters for growth, reproductive performance, calving ease and suckling performance in beef cattle heifers. Animal Science 79, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phocas, F, Bloch, C, Chapelle, P, Bécherel, F, Renand, G, Menissier, F 1998. Developing a breeding objective for a France purebred beef cattle selection programme. Livestock Production Science 57, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phocas, F, Boivin, X, Sapa, J, Trillat, G, Boissy, A, Le Neindre, P 2006. Genetic correlations between temperament and breeding plans in Limousin heifers. Animal Science 85, 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, RL, Gloecker, LA 1978. Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data. Biometrics 34, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raftery, AE, Lewis, SM 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler?. In Bayesian Statistics IV (ed. JM Bernardo, JO Berger, AP David and AFM Smith), pp. 763–774. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rios-Utrera, A, Van Vleck, LD 2004. Heritability estimates for carcass traits of cattle: a review. Genetics Molecular Research 3, 380–394.Google Scholar
Rogers, PL, Gaskins, CT, Johnson, KA, MacNeil, MD 2004. Evaluatng longevity of composite beef females using survival analysis techniques. Journal of Animal Science 82, 860–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shojo, M, Okanishi, T, Anada, K, Oyama, K, Mukai, F 2006. Genetic analysis of calf market weight and carcass traits in Japanese Black cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2617–2622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, DS, Andersen, S, Gianola, D, Korsgaard, I 1995. Bayesian inference in threshold models using Gibbs sampling. Genetics Selection Evolution 27, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabo, F, Dakay, I 2009. Estimation of some productive and reproductive effects on longevity of beef cows using survival analysis. Livestock Science 122, 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, MA, Wong, WH 1987. The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. Journal of American Statistical Association 82, 528–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarres, J, Puig, P, Ducrocq, V, Piedrafita, J 2004. Factors influencing length of productive life and replacement rates in the Bruna dels Pireneus beef breed. Animal Science 78, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tutz, G 1990. Sequential item response models with an ordered response. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 43, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tutz, G 1991. Sequential models in categorical regressions. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 11, 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Melis, MH, Eler, JP, Silva, JAII, Ferraz, JBS 2003. Estimate of genetic parameters in beef cattle using restricted maximum likelihood and method R. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 32, 1624–1632.Google Scholar
Van Melis, MH, Oliveira, HN, Eler, JP, Ferraz, JBS, Casellas, J, Varona, L 2010. Additive genetic relationship of longevity with fertility and production traits in Nellore catlle based on bivariate models. Genetics and Molecular Research 9, 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Tassell, CP, Van Vleck, LD 1996. Multiple-trait Gibbs sampler for animal models: flexible programs for Bayesian and likelihood-based (co)variance component inference. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2586–2597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vollema, AR, Groen, AF 1997. Genetic correlations between longevity and conformation traits in an upgrading dairy cattle population. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 3006–3014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vukasinovic, N, Schleppi, Y, Kunzi, N 2002. Using conformation traits to improve reliability of genetic evaluation for herd life based on survival analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1556–1562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiggans, GR, Thornton, LLM, Neitzel, RR, Gengler, N 2006. Genetic parameters and evaluation of rear legs (rear view) for Brown Swiss and Guernseys. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4895–4900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zavadilova, L, Sitpkova, M, Nemcova, E, Bouska, J, Matejickova, J 2009. Analysis of the phenotypic relationships between type traits and functional survival in Czech Fleckvieh cows. Czech Journal of Animal Science 54, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar