4.7 Article

Genetic parameters for producer-recorded health data in Canadian Holstein cattle

期刊

ANIMAL
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 571-578

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111002059

关键词

dairy cattle; health traits; binary models; genetic parameters

资金

  1. Dairy Gen (Guelph, Ontario, Canada)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health traits are of paramount importance for economic dairy production. Improvement in liability to diseases has been made with better management practices, but genetic aspects of health traits have received less attention. Dairy producers in Canada have been recording eight health traits (mastitis (MAST), lameness (LAME), cystic ovarian disease (COD), left displaced abomasum (LDA), ketosis (KET), metritis (MET), milk fever (MF) and retained placenta (RP)) since April 2007. Genetic analyses of these traits were carried out in this study for the Holstein breed. Edits on herd distributions of recorded diseases were applied to the data to ensure a sufficient quality of recording. Traits were analysed either individually (MAST, LAME, COD) or were grouped according to biological similarities (LDA and KET, and MET, MF and RP) and analysed with multiple-trait models. Data included 46 104 cases of any of the above diseases. Incidence ranged from 2.3% for MF to 9.7% for MAST. MET and KET also had an incidence below 4.0%. Variance components were estimated using four different sire threshold models. The differences between models resulted from the inclusion of days at risk (DAR) and a cow effect, in addition to herd, parity and sire effects. Models were compared using mean squared error statistic. Mean squared error favoured, in general, the sire and cow within sire model with regression on DAR included. Heritabilities on the liability scale were between 0.02 (MET) and 0.21 (LDA). There was a moderate, positive genetic correlation between LDA and KET (0.58), and between MET and RP (0.79).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据