Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:26:34.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype by environment interaction for livability of dairy calves from first parity cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2015

W. Ouweltjes ,
J. J. Windig ,
M. L. van Pelt  and
M. P. L. Calus
W. Ouweltjes*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. J. Windig
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
M. L. van Pelt
Affiliation:
CRV BV, Animal Evaluation Unit, PO Box 454, 6800 AL Arnhem, The Netherlands
M. P. L. Calus
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: wijbrand.ouweltjes@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Death of calves around parturition is a matter of concern for dairy farmers. Relatively high stillbirth rates and unfavourable trends have been reported for Holstein heifers in the Netherlands and several other countries. In our study, we investigated herd differences, genetic parameters and genotype by environment interaction for heifer calf livability. A large dataset with data from calvings between 1993 and 2012 of Dutch dairy farms was used. There were considerable differences between herds in livability of calves from heifers, with averages ranging from 74% to 95%. Both herds with relatively high and low averages showed the same negative trend between 1993 and 2012, with largest declines in herds with the lowest averages. We found that heritability and genetic variation of first parity livability were substantially larger in herd environments where the likelihood of stillbirth was high v. environments where stillbirth was at a low level. The genetic correlations between herd environment levels were all very close to unity, indicating that ranking of sires was similar for all environments. However, for herds with a relatively high stillbirth incidence selecting sires with favourable breeding values is expected to be twice as profitable as in herds with a relatively low stillbirth incidence.

Keywords

dairy cattlecalf livabilitygenotype by environment interactionphenotypic trend
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 10 , October 2015 , pp. 1617 - 1623
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrier, AC, Mason, C, Dwyer, CM, Haskell, MJ and Macrae, AI 2013. Stillbirth in dairy calves is influenced independently by dystocia and body shape. The Veterinary Journal 197, 220–223.Google Scholar
Calus, M, Bijma, P and Veerkamp, R 2004. Effects of data structure on the estimation of covariance functions to describe genotype by environment interactions in a reaction norm model. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 489–507.Google Scholar
Calus, MPL, Windig, JJ and Veerkamp, RF 2005. Associations among descriptors of herd management and phenotypic and genetic levels of health and fertility. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2178–2189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, JB, Wiggans, GR, VanRaden, PM and Miller, RH 2007. Stillbirth (Co)variance components for a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model and development of a calving ability index for sire selection. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2489–2496.Google Scholar
Dempster, ER and Lerner, IM 1950. Heritability of threshold characters. Genetics 35, 212–236.Google Scholar
Dufty, J 1981. The influence of various degrees of confinement and supervision on the incidence of dystokia and stillbirths in Hereford heifers. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 29, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaglen, SAE, Coffey, MP, Woolliams, JA and Wall, E 2013. Direct and maternal genetic relationships between calving ease, gestation length, milk production, fertility, type, and lifespan of Holstein–Friesian primiparous cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4015–4025.Google Scholar
Emanuelson, U, Oltenacu, PA and Gröhn, YT 1993. Nonlinear mixed model analyses of five production disorders of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2765–2772.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S, Näsholm, A, Johansson, K and Philipsson, J 2004. Genetic parameters for calving difficulty, stillbirth, and birth weight for Hereford and Charolais at first and later parities. Journal of Animal Science 82, 375–383.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1952. The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 293–298.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, B, Cullis, B and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Gundelach, Y, Essmeyer, K, Teltscher, M and Hoedemaker, M 2009. Risk factors for perinatal mortality in dairy cattle: cow and foetal factors, calving process. Theriogenology 71, 901–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, M, Lund, MS, Pedersen, J and Christensen, LG 2004. Genetic parameters for stillbirth in Danish Holstein cows using a Bayesian threshold model. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 706–716.Google Scholar
Harbers, A, Segeren, L and de Jong, G 2000. Genetic parameters for stillbirth in the Netherlands. Interbull Bulletin 25, 117–122.Google Scholar
Heins, B, Hansen, L and Seykora, A 2006. Calving difficulty and stillbirths of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2805–2810.Google Scholar
Heringstad, B, Chang, YM, Svendsen, M and Gianola, D 2007. Genetic analysis of calving difficulty and stillbirth in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3500–3507.Google Scholar
Kearney, JF, Schutz, MM and Boettcher, PJ 2004. Genotype × environment interaction for grazing vs. confinement. II. Health and reproduction traits. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 510–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kielland, C, Skjerve, E, Østerås, O and Zanella, A 2010. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2998–3006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mee, J 2013. Explaining unexplained bovine stillbirth: how to deal with ‘farm blindness’. The Veterinary Journal 197, 120–121.Google Scholar
Mee, JF 2004. Managing the dairy cow at calving time. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 20, 521–546.Google Scholar
Mee, JF, Berry, DP and Cromie, AR 2008. Prevalence of, and risk factors associated with, perinatal calf mortality in pasture-based Holstein–Friesian cows. Animal 2, 613–620.Google Scholar
Mee, JF, Sánchez-Miguel, C and Doherty, M 2014. Influence of modifiable risk factors on the incidence of stillbirth/perinatal mortality in dairy cattle. The Veterinary Journal 199, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijering, A 1984. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle: a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11, 143–177.Google Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Stafford, KJ 2004. Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. The Veterinary Journal 168, 118–133.Google Scholar
Meyer, C, Berger, P and Koehler, K 2000. Interactions among factors affecting stillbirths in Holstein cattle in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2657–2663.Google Scholar
Meyer, C, Berger, P, Thompson, J and Sattler, C 2001. Genetic evaluation of Holstein sires and maternal grandsires in the United States for perinatal survival. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1246–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, HA and Bijma, P 2006. Benefits of cooperation between breeding programs in the presence of genotype by environment interaction. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1727–1739.Google Scholar
Murray, CF and Leslie, KE 2013. Newborn calf vitality: risk factors, characteristics, assessment, resulting outcomes and strategies for improvement. The Veterinary Journal 198, 322–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipsson, J, Foulley, J, Lederer, J, Liboriussen, T and Osinga, A 1979. Sire evaluation standards and breeding strategies for limiting dystocia and stillbirth. Report of an EEC/EAAP working group. Livestock Production Science 6, 111–127.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Nielsen, BL, Veerkamp, RF and Simm, G 1999. Genotype and feeding system effects and interactions for health and fertility traits in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 57, 193–201.Google Scholar
Santman, I, Van Wuijckhuise, L, Muskens, J, Smolenaars, A and Van Schaik, G 2013. Tussenrapportage onderzoek naar stijgende sterfte van niet-geoormerkte en geoormerkte kalveren op melkveebedrijven. Report, Gezondheidsdienst voor Dieren, Deventer, the Netherlands (in Dutch).Google Scholar
Steinbock, L, Näsholm, A, Berglund, B, Johansson, K and Philipsson, J 2003. Genetic effects on stillbirth and calving difficulty in Swedish Holsteins at first and second calving. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2228–2235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Bebber, J, Reinsch, N, Junge, W and Kalm, E 1997. Accounting for herd, year and season effects in genetic evaluations of dairy cattle: a review. Livestock Production Science 51, 191–203.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, J and De Boer, W 1989. Influence of nonadditive effects on estimation of genetic parameters in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2606–2614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pelt, M 2015. Personal communication. https://www.crv4all.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/E_20_apr2015_nl.pdf.Google Scholar
van Pelt, M and de Jong, G 2011. Genetic evaluation for direct and maternal livability in The Netherlands. Interbull Bulletin 44, 235–239.Google Scholar
Wiggans, G, Misztal, I and Van Tassell, C 2003. Calving ease (co) variance components for a sire-maternal grandsire threshold model. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1845–1848.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL and Veerkamp, RF 2005. Influence of herd environment on health and fertility and their relationship with milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 335–347.Google Scholar
Yao, C, Weigel, KA and Cole, JB 2014. Short communication: genetic evaluation of stillbirth in US Brown Swiss and Jersey cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2474–2480.Google Scholar