Journal of Animal Science, Vol 77, Issue 8 2003-2007, Copyright © 1999 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Threshold-linear versus linear-linear analysis of birth weight and calving ease using an animal model: II. Comparison of models

L. Varona, I. Misztal and J. K. Bertrand
Department of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens 30602, USA.

Several models were evaluated in terms of predictive ability for calving difficulty. Data included birth weight and calving difficulty scores provided by the American Gelbvieh Association from 26,006 calves born to first-parity cows and five simulated populations of 6,200 animals each. Included in the model were fixed age of dam x sex interaction effects, random herd-year-season effects, and random animal direct and maternal effects. Bivariate linear-threshold and linear-linear models for birth weight/calving ease and univariate threshold and linear models for calving ease were applied to the data sets. For each data set and model, one-half of calving ease records were randomly discarded. Predictive ability of the different models was defined with the mean square error (MSE) for the difference between a deleted calving ease score and its prediction obtained from the remaining data. In terms of correlation between simulated and predicted breeding values, the threshold models had a 1% advantage for direct genetic effects and 3% for maternal genetic effects. In simulation, the average MSE was .29 for linear-threshold, .32 for linear-linear, .37 for threshold, and .39 for linear model. For the field data set, the MSE was .31, .33, .39, and .40, respectively. Although the bivariate models for calving ease/birth weight were more accurate than univariate models, the threshold models showed a greater advantage under the bivariate model. For the purpose of genetic evaluation for calving difficulty in beef cattle, the use of the linear-threshold model seems justified. In dairy cattle, the evaluation for calving ease can benefit from recording birth weight.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. D. N. Mujibi and D. H. Crews Jr. Genetic parameters for calving ease, gestation length, and birth weight in Charolais cattle J Anim Sci, September 1, 2009; 87(9): 2759 - 2766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Konig, X. L. Wu, D. Gianola, B. Heringstad, and H. Simianer Exploration of Relationships Between Claw Disorders and Milk Yield in Holstein Cows via Recursive Linear and Threshold Models J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2008; 91(1): 395 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Silvestre, M. M. D. Ginja, A. J. A. Ferreira, and J. Colaco Comparison of estimates of hip dysplasia genetic parameters in Estrela Mountain Dog using linear and threshold models J Anim Sci, August 1, 2007; 85(8): 1880 - 1884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Casellas, G. Caja, A. Ferret, and J. Piedrafita Analysis of litter size and days to lambing in the Ripollesa ewe. I. Comparison of models with linear and threshold approaches J Anim Sci, March 1, 2007; 85(3): 618 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Gutierrez, F. Goyache, I. Fernandez, I. Alvarez, and L. J. Royo Genetic relationships among calving ease, calving interval, birth weight, and weaning weight in the Asturiana de los Valles beef cattle breed J Anim Sci, January 1, 2007; 85(1): 69 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. M. Andersen-Ranberg, B. Heringstad, D. Gianola, Y. M. Chang, and G. Klemetsdal Comparison Between Bivariate Models for 56-Day Nonreturn and Interval from Calving to First Insemination in Norwegian Red J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2005; 88(6): 2190 - 2198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Pan, G. B. Jansen, T. F. Duffield, S. Hietala, D. Kelton, C. Y. Lin, and A. S. Peregrine Genetic Susceptibility to Neospora caninum Infection in Holstein Cattle in Ontario J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2004; 87(11): 3967 - 3975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]