J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rumph, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Van Vleck, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rumph, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Van Vleck, L. D.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 80, Issue 3 583-590, Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Comparison of models for estimation of genetic parameters for mature weight of Hereford cattle

J. M. Rumph, R. M. Koch, K. E. Gregory, L. V. Cundiff and L. D. Van Vleck
Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908, USA. jrumph1@bigred.unl.edu

Genetic parameters of mature weight are needed for effective selection and genetic evaluation. Data for estimating these parameters were collected from 1963 to 1985 and consisted of 32,018 mature weight records of 4,175 Hereford cows that were in one control and three selection lines that had been selected for weaning weight, for yearling weight, or for an index combining yearling weight and muscle score for 22 yr. Several models and subsets of the data were considered. The mature weight records consisted of a maximum of three seasonal weights taken each year, at brand clipping (February and March), before breeding (May and June), and at palpation (August and September). Heritability estimates were high (0.49 to 0.86) for all models considered, which suggests that selection to change mature weight could be effective. The model that best fit the data included maternal genetic and maternal permanent environmental effects in addition to direct genetic and direct permanent environmental effects. Estimates of direct heritability with this model ranged from 0.53 to 0.79, estimates of maternal heritability ranged from 0.09 to 0.21, and estimates of the genetic correlation between direct and maternal effects ranged from -0.16 to -0.67 for subsets of the data based on time of year that mature weight was measured. For the same subsets, estimates of the proportions of variance due to direct permanent environment and maternal permanent environment ranged from 0.00 to 0.09 and 0.00 to 0.06, respectively. Using a similar model that combined all records and included an added fixed effect of season of measurement of mature weight, direct heritability, maternal heritability, genetic correlation between direct and maternal effects, proportion of variance due to direct permanent environmental effects, and proportion of variance due to maternal permanent environmental effects were estimated to be 0.69, 0.13, -0.65, 0.00, and 0.04, respectively. Mature weight is a highly heritable trait that could be included in selection programs and maternal effects should not be ignored when analyzing mature weight data.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
S. Forni, M. Piles, A. Blasco, L. Varona, H. N. Oliveira, R. B. Lobo, and L. G. Albuquerque
Analysis of beef cattle longitudinal data applying a nonlinear model
J Anim Sci, December 1, 2007; 85(12): 3189 - 3197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. W. Wilton
Genomic and computing strategies in the optimization of the genetic component of specification beef
J Anim Sci, February 1, 2003; 81(14_suppl_2): E24 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society of Animal Science.