Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:50:05.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype by environment interaction in response to cold stress in a composite beef cattle breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

S. Toghiani Open the ORCID record for S. Toghiani [Opens in a new window] ,
E. Hay ,
B. Fragomeni ,
R. Rekaya  and
A. J. Roberts
S. Toghiani*
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT59301, USA
E. Hay
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT59301, USA
B. Fragomeni
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT06269, USA
R. Rekaya
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602, USA Department of Statistics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602, USA Institute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602, USA
A. J. Roberts
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT59301, USA
*
†E-mail: sajjad.toghiani@usda.gov
Get access

Abstract

Extreme weather conditions such as cold stress influence the productivity and survivability of beef cattle raised on pasture. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate the extent of the impact of genotype by environment interaction due to cold stress on birth weight (BW) and weaning weight (WW) in a composite beef cattle population. The effect of cold stress was modelled as the accumulation of total cold load (TCL) calculated using the Comprehensive Climate Index units, considering three TCL classes defined based on temperature: less than −5°C (TCL5), −15°C (TCL15) and −25°C (TCL25). A total of 4221 and 4217 records for BW and WW, respectively, were used from a composite beef cattle population (50% Red Angus, 25% Charolais and 25% Tarentaise) between 2002 and 2015. For both BW and WW, a univariate model (ignoring cold stress) and a reaction norm model were implemented. As cold load increased, the direct heritability slightly increased in both BW and WW for TCL5 class; however, this heritability remained consistent across the cold load of TCL25 class. In contrast, the maternal heritability of BW was constant with cold load increase in all TCL classes, although a slight increase of maternal heritability was observed for TCL5 and TCL15. The direct and maternal genetic correlation for BW and maternal genetic correlation for WW across different cold loads between all TCL classes were high (r > 0.99), whereas the lowest direct genetic correlations observed for WW were 0.88 for TCL5 and 0.85 for TCL15. The Spearman rank correlation between the estimated breeding value of top bulls (n = 79) using univariate and reaction norm models across TCL classes showed some re-ranking in direct and maternal effects for both BW and WW particularly for TCL5 and TCL15. In general, cold stress did not have a big impact on direct and maternal genetic effects of BW and WW.

Keywords

bovinereaction normcold loadbirth weightweaning weight
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 1576 - 1587
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: USDA-ARS-PA-Livestock & Range Res. Lab (LARRL), 243 Fort Keogh Road, Miles City, MT 59301, USA.

References

Ayrinhac, A, Debat, V, Gibert, P, Kister, AG, Legout, H, Moreteau, B, Vergilino, R and David, J 2004. Cold adaptation in geographical populations of Drosophila melanogaster: phenotypic plasticity is more important than genetic variability. Functional Ecology 18, 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeta, F, Meador, N, Shanklin, M and Johnson, H 1987. Equivalent temperature index at temperatures above the thermoneutral for lactating dairy cows. ASAE Meeting Paper 87–4015. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.Google Scholar
Baker, R 1980. The role of maternal effects on the efficiency of selection in beef cattle – a review. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 40, 285–303.Google Scholar
Bohmanova, J, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Norman, H and Lawlor, T 2008. Genotype by environment interaction due to heat stress. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 840–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, H, Fragomeni, B, Bertrand, J, Lourenco, D and Misztal, I 2016. Genetic evaluations for growth heat tolerance in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4143–4150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brügemann, K, Gernand, E, Von Borstel, U and König, S 2011. Genetic analyses of protein yield in dairy cows applying random regression models with time-dependent and temperature x humidity-dependent covariates. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4129–4139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buffington, D, Collazo-Arocho, A, Canton, G, Pitt, D, Thatcher, W and Collier, R 1981. Black globe-humidity index (BGHI) as comfort equation for dairy cows. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 24, 711–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortés-Lacruz, X, Casasús, I, Revilla, R, Sanz, A, Blanco, M and Villalba, D 2017. The milk yield of dams and its relation to direct and maternal genetic components of weaning weight in beef cattle. Livestock Science 202, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, R, Misztal, I, Elzo, M, Bertrand, J, Silva, L and Łukaszewicz, M 2011. Estimation of genetic parameters for mature weight in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2680–2686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Da Silva, RG, Maia, AS and de Macedo Costa, LL 2015. Index of thermal stress for cows (ITSC) under high solar radiation in tropical environments. International Journal of Biometeorology 59, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, G 1990. Quantitative genetics of reaction norms. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3, 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drewry, KJ, Brown, CJ and Honea, RS 1959. Relationships among factors associated with mothering ability in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 18, 938–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, S, Nasholm, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D 1990. Selection in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetics Research 56, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowden, A, Ward, J, Wooding, F and Forhead, A 2011. Developmental programming of the ovine placenta. Reproduction in Domestic Ruminants VII, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragomeni, B, Lourenco, D, Tsuruta, S, Andonov, S, Gray, K, Huang, Y and Misztal, I 2016. Modeling response to heat stress in pigs from nucleus and commercial farms in different locations in the United States. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4789–4798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaughan, J, Mader, TL, Holt, S and Lisle, A 2008. A new heat load index for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haile-Mariam, M, Carrick, M and Goddard, M 2008. Genotype by environment interaction for fertility, survival, and milk production traits in Australian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4840–4853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammami, H, Vandenplas, J, Vanrobays, M-L, Rekik, B, Bastin, C and Gengler, N 2015. Genetic analysis of heat stress effects on yield traits, udder health, and fatty acids of Walloon Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4956–4968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AJ, Savin, K, van Tassell, CP, Sonstegard, TS and Goddard, ME 2009. A validated genome wide association study to breed cattle adapted to an environment altered by climate change. PLoS ONE 4, e6676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoelscher, M 2001. Adverse winter conditions increase cost of production. Feedstuffs 73, 5.Google Scholar
Karan, D and David, JR 2000. Cold tolerance in Drosophila: adaptive variations revealed by the analysis of starvation survival reaction norms. Journal of Thermal Biology 25, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klepsatel, P, Gáliková, M, De Maio, N, Huber, CD, Schlötterer, C and Flatt, T 2013. Variation in thermal performance and reaction norms among populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 67, 3573–3587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, RM, Cundiff, LV and Gregory, KE 1994. Cumulative selection and genetic change for weaning or yearling weight or for yearling weight plus muscle score in Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 864–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillehammer, M, Hayes, B, Meuwissen, T and Goddard, M 2009. Gene by environment interactions for production traits in Australian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4008–4017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeil, M 2003. Genetic evaluation of an index of birth weight and yearling weight to improve efficiency of beef production. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2425–2433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeil, M 2005. Genetic evaluation of the ratio of calf weaning weight to cow weight. Journal of Animal Science 83, 794–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mader, TL 2003. Environmental stress in confined beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 110–119.Google Scholar
Mader, TL, Johnson, LJ and Gaughan, JB 2010. A comprehensive index for assessing environmental stress in animals. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2153–2165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattar, M, Silva, L, Alencar, M and Cardoso, F 2011. Genotype× environment interaction for long-yearling weight in Canchim cattle quantified by reaction norm analysis. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2349–2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menéndez-Buxadera, A, Serradilla, J and Molina, A 2014. Genetic variability for heat stress sensitivity in Merino de Grazalema sheep. Small Ruminant Research 121, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menéndez-Buxadera, A, Molina, A, Arrebola, F, Clemente, I and Serradilla, J 2012. Genetic variation of adaptation to heat stress in two Spanish dairy goat breeds. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 306–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Lourenco, D, Masuda, Y, Aguilar, I, Legarra, A and Vitezica, ZG 2016. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs. Retrieved from http://nce.ads.uga.edu/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=blupf90_all5.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mujibi, F and Crews, D Jr. 2009. Genetic parameters for calving ease, gestation length, and birth weight in Charolais cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2759–2766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, S, MacNeil, M, Reynolds, W, Knapp, B and Urick, J 1993a. Fixed effects in the formation of a composite line of beef cattle: I. Experimental design and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2026–2032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, S, MacNeil, M, Reynolds, W, Knapp, B and Urick, J 1993b. Fixed effects in the formation of a composite line of beef cattle: II. Pre-and postweaning growth and carcass composition. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2033–2039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeiffer, C, Fuerst, C, Schwarzenbacher, H and Fuerst-Waltl, B 2016. Genotype by environment interaction in organic and conventional production systems and their consequences for breeding objectives in Austrian Fleckvieh cattle. Livestock Science 185, 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, LP, Borowicz, PP, Caton, JS, Vonnahme, KA, Luther, JS, Hammer, CJ, Maddock Carlin, KR, Grazul-Bilska, AT and Redmer, DA 2010. Developmental programming: the concept, large animal models, and the key role of uteroplacental vascular development. Journal of Animal Science 88, E61–E72.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, A, Funston, R, Grings, E and Petersen, M 2016. TRIENNIAL REPRODUCTION SYMPOSIUM: beef heifer development and lifetime productivity in rangeland-based production systems. Journal of Animal Science 94, 2705–2715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santana, ML Jr., Bignardi, AB, Eler, JP and Ferraz, JB 2016. Genetic variation of the weaning weight of beef cattle as a function of accumulated heat stress. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 133, 92–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Sengupta, M, Xie, Y, Lopez, A, Habte, A, Maclaurin, G and Shelby, J 2018. The national solar radiation data base (NSRDB). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 89, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Splan, RK, Cundiff, LV, Dikeman, ME and Van Vleck, LD 2002. Estimates of parameters between direct and maternal genetic effects for weaning weight and direct genetic effects for carcass traits in crossbred cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 3107–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streit, M, Reinhardt, F, Thaller, G and Bennewitz, J 2012. Reaction norms and genotype-by-environment interaction in the German Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 380–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thom, EC 1959. The discomfort index. Weatherwise 12, 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trus, D and Wilton, J 1988. Genetic parameters for maternal traits in beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zumbach, B, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Sanchez, J, Azain, M, Herring, W, Holl, J, Long, T and Culbertson, M 2008. Genetic components of heat stress in finishing pigs: development of a heat load function. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2082–2088.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Toghiani et al. Supplementary Materials

Toghiani et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Toghiani et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 365.6 KB