2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2012.00998.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic associations of visual scores with subsequent rebreeding and days to first calving in Nellore cattle

Abstract: Records of Nellore animals born from 1990 to 2006 were used to estimate genetic correlations of visual scores at yearling (conformation, C; finishing precocity, P; and muscling, M) with primiparous subsequent rebreeding (SR) and days to first calving (DC), because the magnitude of these associations is still unknown. Genetic parameters were estimated by multiple-traits Bayesian analysis, using a nonlinear (threshold) animal models for visual scores and SR and a linear animal models for weaning weight (WW) and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
18
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Higher heritability estimates were reported by Barichello et al (2010) in Canchim cattle for the same trait, which was assessed at weaning, and varied from 0.17 to 0.27. Heritability estimates for other visual score assessments in Nellore and Angus herds obtained at the weaning and yearling stages have ranged from 0.19 to 0.38 (Cardoso et al, 2004;Boligon and Albuquerque, 2010;Faria et al, 2009Faria et al, , 2010Koury Filho et al, 2010;Boligon et al, 2012;Wenceslau et al, 2012). These differences in heritability estimates could be caused by differences in the definition of visual assessment scores, the model applied to estimate the (co)variance components, as well as to differences in genetic and environmental variability between the populations or herds studied.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Higher heritability estimates were reported by Barichello et al (2010) in Canchim cattle for the same trait, which was assessed at weaning, and varied from 0.17 to 0.27. Heritability estimates for other visual score assessments in Nellore and Angus herds obtained at the weaning and yearling stages have ranged from 0.19 to 0.38 (Cardoso et al, 2004;Boligon and Albuquerque, 2010;Faria et al, 2009Faria et al, , 2010Koury Filho et al, 2010;Boligon et al, 2012;Wenceslau et al, 2012). These differences in heritability estimates could be caused by differences in the definition of visual assessment scores, the model applied to estimate the (co)variance components, as well as to differences in genetic and environmental variability between the populations or herds studied.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Boligon and Albuquerque (2010) studied Nellore cattle, and estimated low genetic correlations between AFC and yearling scores of conformation (-0.26 ± 0.01), precocity (-0.29 ± 0.02), and muscling (-0.23 ± 0.02). Recently, Boligon et al (2012) obtained low and favorable genetic correlations between days to first calving and yearling scores of conformation, precocity, and muscling, which ranged from -0.11 ± 0.09 to -0.19 ± 0.09. Therefore, the selection of animals with a good body composition as evaluated by visual slaughter conformation scores in yearlings would not affect female sexual precocity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although rules exist for the judging of Zebu animals, cattle ranking in championships is a subjective trait like other traits used in beef cattle breeding programs in Brazil, e.g., visual scores of conformation, muscling, structure, and navel, among others (Van Melis et al, 2003;Faria et al, 2009;Boligon et al, 2012). For animals ranking in championships, competitions could be structured according to the level (or importance) of the event, i.e., there are more important competitions in which very good animals participate and the level can be considered high, or vice-versa.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The methodologies vary according to the number of evaluated traits, the nature of the phenotypic data distribution, the genetic structure adopted and the estimation method of the variance components. For example, by the assumption of linear (Gordo et al, 2012;Forutan, Mahyari, & Sargolzaei, 2015) or threshold distribution of phenotypes (Faria et al, 2009;Boligon et al, 2012;Forutan, Mahyari, & Sargolzaei, 2015), by using sire or animal models (Forutan, Mahyari, & Sargolzaei, 2015); and by adopting restricted maximum likelihood (Bouquet et al, 2010;Queiroz et al, 2011), Bayesian (Boligon et al, 2012;Santana Jr. et al, 2013) or generalized linear mixed model approaches (Forutan, Mahyari, & Sargolzaei, 2015) as estimation methods. These methodologies can be applied in a combined way.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%