2013
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6229
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct and maternal genetic relationships between calving ease, gestation length, milk production, fertility, type, and lifespan of Holstein-Friesian primiparous cows

Abstract: As the emphasis in cattle breeding is shifting from traits that increase income toward traits that reduce costs, national breeding indices are expanding to include functional traits such as calving ease (CE). However, one issue is the lack of knowledge of genetic relationships between CE and other dairy traits. The same can be said about gestation length (GL), a potential novel selection trait with considerable heritabilities and possible genetic relationships with the calving process. This study aimed to esti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
45
4
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
45
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To enable comparison of our results to those of other studies using a threshold model, the transformed heritabilities on the underlying scale (h 2 transf us ) were computed from the heritability (h 2 ) estimates computed for each herd level using the model described above as h 2 transf us ¼ h 2 pð1ÀpÞ z 2 where p is average incidence of livability at the herd level and z is the ordinate of the standard normal density function corresponding to p (Dempster and Lerner, 1950 (Wiggans et al, 2003),σ sire;mgs is the estimated covariance between sire and maternal effects. A derivation of this formula is provided in the Appendix of Eaglen et al (2013). When computing the maternal heritability, we ignored the termσ sire;mgs to compute the q whereσ mgs 1 ;mgs 2 is the estimated maternal grandsire covariance between environments 1 and 2, andσ 2 mgs 1 is the estimated maternal grandsire variance for environment 1.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To enable comparison of our results to those of other studies using a threshold model, the transformed heritabilities on the underlying scale (h 2 transf us ) were computed from the heritability (h 2 ) estimates computed for each herd level using the model described above as h 2 transf us ¼ h 2 pð1ÀpÞ z 2 where p is average incidence of livability at the herd level and z is the ordinate of the standard normal density function corresponding to p (Dempster and Lerner, 1950 (Wiggans et al, 2003),σ sire;mgs is the estimated covariance between sire and maternal effects. A derivation of this formula is provided in the Appendix of Eaglen et al (2013). When computing the maternal heritability, we ignored the termσ sire;mgs to compute the q whereσ mgs 1 ;mgs 2 is the estimated maternal grandsire covariance between environments 1 and 2, andσ 2 mgs 1 is the estimated maternal grandsire variance for environment 1.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Selection of the sire can be important. Many producers will take calving ease into consideration (Eaglen et al, 2013). However, bull fertility is also variable, with a study of Angus beef heifers reporting variations in pregnancy rates between sires of 65% to 100% within a breeding season (Bormann et al, 2006).…”
Section: Heifer Fertilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major cause of dystocia is disproportion between the fetus and dam. This can be influenced by choice of sire (Eaglen et al, 2013) but the dam's relative maturity and pelvic width are also critical. Inadequate skeletal maturity can be a problem if the AFC is < 24 months (Hansen, 2004).…”
Section: Influence Of Heifer Rearing System On Subsequent Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar CE distribution has been reported by Eaglen and Bijma (2009). However, in other studies, the score with the highest frequency was score 1 (Wiggans et al 2003;Eaglen et al 2013). Differences between authors in CE classes' definition can contribute to those discrepancies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 52%