1 / 18

Genetic Evaluation of Stillbirth in US Holsteins Using a Sire-maternal Grandsire Threshold Model

Genetic Evaluation of Stillbirth in US Holsteins Using a Sire-maternal Grandsire Threshold Model. Introduction. Stillbirth is a genetically-controlled trait. Producers are concerned about stillbirth. Calf livability scores are already delivered with calving ease data.

plee
Download Presentation

Genetic Evaluation of Stillbirth in US Holsteins Using a Sire-maternal Grandsire Threshold Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Genetic Evaluation of Stillbirth in US Holsteins Using a Sire-maternal Grandsire Threshold Model

  2. Introduction • Stillbirth is a genetically-controlled trait. • Producers are concerned about stillbirth. • Calf livability scores are already delivered with calving ease data. • Participation in Interbull evaluations for both calving ease (CE) and stillbirth (SB) is desirable.

  3. Stillbirth Definition • Reported on a three-point scale: • Scores of 2 and 3 are combined.

  4. Data and Edits • 6 million SB records were available for Holstein cows calving since 1980. • Herds needed ≥10 calving records with SB scores of 2 or 3 for inclusion. • Herd-years were required to include ≥20 records. • Only single births were used (no twins).

  5. Stillbirth Data Stillbirth Score

  6. Genetic Evaluation Model • A sire-maternal grandsire (MGS) threshold model was used: • Fixed: year-season, parity-sex, sire and MGS birth year; • Random: herd-year, sire, MGS. • (Co)variance components were estimated by Gibbs sampling. • Heritabilities are 3.0% (direct) and 6.5% (MGS).

  7. Trait Definition • PTA are expressed as the expected percentage of stillbirths. • Direct SB measures the effect of the calf itself. • Maternal SB measures the effect of a particular cow (daughter). • A base of 8% was used for both traits: • Direct: bulls born 1996–2000; • Maternal: bulls born 1991–1995.

  8. Phenotypic Trend for Stillbirths

  9. Genetic Trend for Stillbirths

  10. Distribution of PTA

  11. Distribution of Reliabilities

  12. Dystocia and Stillbirth • Meyer et al. (2001b) make a strong argument for the inclusion of dystocia in models for SB. • Difficulty of interpretation - formidable educational challenge. • Interbull trait harmonization - none of the March 2006 test run participants included dystocia in their models. • Changes in sire and MGS solutions on the underlying scale between models were small.

  13. Correlations among domestic and Interbull SB solutions (≥90% Rel on both scales)

  14. Genetic Correlations Among SB and CE

  15. Calving Ability Index • CA$ has a genetic correlation of 0.85 with the combined direct and maternal CE values in 2003 NM$ and 0.77 with maternal CE in TPI. • Calving traits receive 6% of the total emphasis in NM$ (August 2006 revision).

  16. Conclusions • Number of SB records (6 million) was about half of calving ease records (14 million). • Reliabilities for SB averaged 45% versus 60% for CE. • Phenotypic and genetic trends from 1980 to 2005 were both small. • An industry-wide effort is underway to improve recording of calf livability.

  17. Conclusions • A routine evaluation for stillbirth in US Holsteins was implemented in August 2006. • Direct and maternal stillbirth were included in NM$ for Holsteins starting in August 2006. • August 2006 data were sent to Interbull for the September 2006 test run for calving traits. • The US will participate in routine Interbull evaluations beginning in November 2006.

  18. Acknowledgments • Jeff Berger, Iowa State University • John Clay, Dairy Records Management Systems • Ignacy Misztal and Shogo Tsuruta, University of Georgia

More Related