Sire × Environment Interactions in Beef Cattle Weaning Weight Field Data

Jk, Bertrand; Pj, Berger; Rl, Willham

doi:10.2527/jas1985.6061396x

Cited by 31 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is higher than the 3.3 to 6.296 obtained by Noffer et al (1992) as well the 2.2 to 4.0% obtained by Bertrand et al (1985) and Tess er al. (1979).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 52%

“…If a herd-year-season by sire interaction (HYSxS) exists, it will influence the accuracy of the estimated genetic parameters and subsequently breeding values. The effect of genotype by environment interaction, or, as in this case, HYSxS is well documented (Buchanan & Nielsen, 1979;Tess el a1.,1979;Bertrand et al, 1985, 1987, Brown el al.,1993a, 1993b, Foulley & Henderson, 1989. Notter et al (1992) suggested that to obtain accurate across-herd analyses of sires, herd x sire interaction should always be included.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters in Bonsmara cattle

Neser¹,

Konstantinov²,

Erasmus³

2009

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weaning weight records of 24 758 Bonsmara calves produced by 503 sires in 30 herds, from 1980 to 1993, were used to examine the importance of the inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters. Three separate models were used in the DFREML analysis of the data. In the first, permanent maternal environment was included as an additional random factor, while in the second, herd-year-season by sire interaction was included, also as an additional random factor. Both these factors were included as additional random factors in the third model. The estimates of the (co)variance components and heritabilities for direct additive (a), maternal additive (m) and additional random factor (c) for the three models analysed, were as follows: Q'u, 138.04, 65.23, 67.46; (o'..nr 84.77,143.80, 66.8*3; (oa.., (o'p"r..nt 73.72, 71.01; (o'Hysxs:41.79,+1.39; (o'":251.31,274.78,265.97; (ozo: 490.37,497.35,490.74',hza'.0.28,0.13,0.14; h',n: 0.17,0.29,0.14. The results indicate the importance of both permanent maternal environment and herdyear-season by sire interaction in the estimation of the genetic parameters. The exclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction could lead to a serious overestimation of the direct additive components. The same applies for permanent maternal environment. The exclusion of this factor could lead to a serious overestimation of the maternal components. Both these factors should therefore be included in the across-herd weaning weight analysis of Bonsmara cattle.Speengewig rekords van 24 758 Bonsmarakalwers, die nageslag van 503 bulle uit 30 kuddes gebore vanaf 1980 tot 1993, is gebruik om die invloed van die insluiting van kudde-jaar-seisoen by vaar interaksie op die beraming van die genetiese parameters te ondersoek. Drie aparte modelle is gebruik in die DFREML analise van die data. In die eerste is permanente maternale omgewingseffekte ingesluit as 'n addisionele toevallige effek. Permanente maternale omgewingseffekte is in die tweede model vervang met kudde-jaar-seisoen by vaar interaksie. In die derde model is beide die faktore as addisionele toevallige effekte ingeluit. Die beramings van die (ko)variansie komponente en oorerflikhede vir direk additief (a), maternaal additief (m) en addisionele toevallige effekte vir die drie modelle gebruik in die analise was soos vo^lg: (o2": 138.04,65.23, 67.46; (o2r: 84.77,143.8b, 66.83; (o2per ^: 73.72, 71 .01; (o2Hvsrsi 41 .79, 41 .39; (o2": 251 .31',"274.78, 265.97; (o'o: 490.37,497.35,490.74;h'^:0.28,0.13, 0.14;h'^:0.17,0.29,0.14. Die resultate dui op die belangrikheid van beide die twee addisionele toevallige effekte in die beraming van die genetiese parameters. Die uitsluiting van kudde-jaar-seisoen by vaar interaksie kan lei tot 'n ernstige oorberaming van die direk additiewe komponente. Dieselfde geld vir permanente maternale omgewing. Die uitsluiting van die effek kan weer op sy beurt lei tot 'n oorberaming van die maternaal additiewe komponente, Beide die effekte behoort dus ingesluit te word in die tussen-kudd...

show abstract

“…This is higher than the 3.3 to 6.296 obtained by Noffer et al (1992) as well the 2.2 to 4.0% obtained by Bertrand et al (1985) and Tess er al. (1979).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 52%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters in Bonsmara cattle

Neser¹,

Konstantinov²,

Erasmus³

2009

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sire variances for preweaning gain estimated by Kennedy (1974) The work of Frisch (1981) in Australia and Bertrand et al (1985) The maternal component of preweaning gain is expected to be due primarily to milk yield (Drewry et al 1959) but may also be affected by maternal behavior (Baker 1980 Direct heritability (Table 3) was reasonably high for most breeds. Charolais and Hereford had the lowest estimates suggesting less genetic progress will be made for preweaning gain if selection is based solely on the direct effect.…”

Section: Preweaning Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Parameters for Maternal Traits in Beef Cattle

Trus¹,

Wilton²

1988

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct (D) and maternal (M) parameters for birth weight (BW), preweaning gain (WG) and calving ease (CE) were estimated for Angus (AN), Hereford (HE), Charolais (CH), Simmental (SM) and Shorthorn (SS). Data for the study were collected by Agriculture Canada from 1973 to 1983 for use in the National Sire Monitoring Program. Variances were estimated for each breed by a modified Method IV applied to a sire-maternal grandsire model with herd-year-seasons and age of dam × sex of calf as fixed effects. Genetic correlations (D/M) between D and M effects for WG in AN, HE, SS, CH and SM were −0.54, −0.42, −0.14, −0.26 and −0.45, respectively. Corresponding estimates of direct heritability for WG were 0.39, 0.30, 0.39, 0.27 and 0.43 and of maternal heritability 0.21, 0.27, 0.26, 0.16 and 0.20. Estimates for BW were similar to those for WG. Estimates of the D/M correlation for CE were −0.43, −0.15, −0.32, −0.74 and −0.27, of the direct heritability 0.28, 0.17, 0.19, 0.33 and 0.21, and of the maternal heritability 0.22, 0.13, 0.19, 0.23 and 0.27 for AN, HE, SS, CH and SM, respectively. Genetic trend and the introduction of new genetic lines are expected to have influenced parameter estimates. Due to negative D/M correlation estimates and moderate maternal heritabilities, selection for both the D and M components of maternal traits is advised. Key words: Variance, direct, maternal, heritability, genetic correlation, beef cattle

show abstract

“…According to Meyer (1987), genetic evaluations of sires should take into account the effect of sire × environment interaction to reduce the effects of preferential treatment and also to prevent the overestimation of accuracy of sires, particularly those used in a few herds. The inclusion of S × CG in the model is important to account for the distribution of progeny of sires between herds and contemporary groups (Bertrand et al, 1985). The model with S × CG allows the production of only one EBV (excluding G × E) per animal unlike multi-trait model and the reaction norms model used by Santana et al (2012 and2013) to this same beef cattle population.…”

Section: Genetic Evaluation and Model Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The production environment of beef cattle in Brazil is characterized by wide diversity and G × E should therefore be a matter of concern to breeders and producers. However, beef cattle breeding programs have generally neglected the possible effects of sire × environment interaction, a fact that, according to Bertrand et al (1985), may cause bias in sire breeding values. The most common manifestations of G × E are sire × herd, sire × season of birth, and sire × contemporary group interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genotype by production environment interaction for birth and weaning weights in a population of composite beef cattle

Júnior

Eler

Bignardi

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of the present study were: (1) to evaluate the importance of genotype × production environment interaction for the genetic evaluation of birth weight (BW) and weaning weight (WW) in a population of composite beef cattle in Brazil, and (2) to investigate the importance of sire × contemporary group interaction (S × CG) to model G × E and improve the accuracy of prediction in routine genetic evaluations of this population. Analyses were performed with one, two (favorable and unfavorable) or three (favorable, intermediate, unfavorable) different definitions of production environments. Thus, BW and WW records of animals in a favorable environment were assigned to either trait 1, in an intermediate environment to trait 2 or in an unfavorable environment to trait 3. The (co)variance components were estimated using Gibbs sampling in single-, bi-or three-trait animal models according to the definition of number of production environments. In general, the estimates of genetic parameters for BW and WW were similar between environments. The additive genetic correlations between production environments were close to unity for BW; however, when examining the highest posterior density intervals, the correlation between favorable and unfavorable environments reached a value of only 0.70, a fact that may lead to changes in the ranking of sires across environments. The posterior mean genetic correlation between direct effects was 0.63 in favorable and unfavorable environments for WW. When S × CG was included in two-or three-trait analyses, all direct genetic correlations were close to unity, suggesting that there was no evidence of a genotype × production environment interaction. Furthermore, the model including S × CG contributed to prevent overestimation of the accuracy of breeding values of sires, provided a lower error of prediction for both direct and maternal breeding values, lower squared bias, residual variance and deviance information criterion than the model omitting S × CG. Thus, the model that included S × CG can therefore be considered the best model on the basis of these criteria. The genotype × production environment interaction should not be neglected in the genetic evaluation of BW and WW in the present population of beef cattle. The inclusion of S × CG in the model is a feasible and plausible alternative to model the effects of G × E in the genetic evaluations.

show abstract

Sire × Environment Interactions in Beef Cattle Weaning Weight Field Data

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

The inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters in Bonsmara cattle

The inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters in Bonsmara cattle

Genetic Parameters for Maternal Traits in Beef Cattle

Genotype by production environment interaction for birth and weaning weights in a population of composite beef cattle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About