No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Breeding programs in dairy cattle - current and future considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
Extract
Methods of evaluating dairy cattle using mixed models with Best Linear Unbiased Prediction properties have progressed from the sire model to the animal model. Definitions of effects in models need refinement, particularly for contemporary groups. Pedigree selection and progeny testing is the standard for producing sires used in artificial insemination, but multiple ovulation and embryo transfer schemes are being tried. Efficient production is necessary under conditions of surplus. Efficiency can be achieved by higher production per cow and reducing costs by improved reproduction, increased herd life, reduced health costs, and reduced dystocia. Preferential treatment is a major problem. New biotechnological developments such as bovine somatotropin, mitochondrial genetics, sexing semen, embryo transfers, cloning, transgenic animals, and markers are considered as potential new technologies that may be useful for dairy cattle improvement.
- Type
- Breeding Technology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1988
References
Animal Health Institute. 1987. Bovine Somatotropin (BST).(PUBL.) 2-9/87-3M. P.O.B. 1417-D50. Alexandria, Va.Google Scholar
Bell, B. R., McDaniel, B. T., and Robinson, O. W.. 1985. Effects of cytoplasmic inheritance on production traits in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 68: 2038.Google Scholar
Bertrand, J. A., Berger, P. J., Freeman, A. E., and Kelley, D. H.. 1985. Profitability in daughters of high versus average Holstein sires selected for milk yield of daughters. J. Dairy Sci.
68: 2287.Google Scholar
Burnside, E. B.
1987. Impact of somatotropin and other biochemical products on sire summaries and cow indexes. J. Dairy Sci.: 2444
Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P.
1983. Structure of dairy cattle breeding in western Europe and comparisons with North America. J. Dairy Sci.
66: 1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, E. P.
1987. Response of breeding organizations to milk quota restrictions. In Breeding Dairy Cattle Under Quota Restrictions, p. 24. Bull, of the European Communities S4/83.Google Scholar
Djemali, M., Freeman, A. E., and Berger, P. J.. 1987a. Reporting of dystocia scores and effects of dystocia on production, days open, and days dry from Dairy Herd Improvement Data. J. Dairy Sci.
70: 2127.Google Scholar
Djemali, M., Berger, P. J., and Freeman, A. E.. 1987b. Ordered categorical sire evaluation for dystocia in Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci.
70: 2374.Google Scholar
Everett, R. W., Quass, R. L., and McClintock, A. E.. 1979. Daughters' maternal grandsires in sire evaluation. J. Dairy Sci.
62: 1304.Google Scholar
Foster, W. W., Freeman, A. E., and Berger, P. J.. 1986. Association of traits scored linearly with production and herdlife in Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci.
69(Suppl. 1): 97.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. E.
1986. Genetic control of reproduction and lactation in dairy cattle. Proc. 3rd World Congress on genetics applied to livestock production. XI. pg. 3. Lincoln, Neb.
07 16-22.Google Scholar
Gannon, Frank. 1986. Transgenics. New Technology in Animal Breeding. p. 54. Oxford Scientific Publications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. B., Freeman, A. E., and Berger, P. J.. 1983. Association of heifer fertility with cow fertility and yield in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci.
66: 306.Google Scholar
Heidhues, T., Vleck, L. D. Van and Henderson, C. R.. 1961. Actual and expected accuracy of sire proofs under the New York system of sampling bulls. Z. Tierz. Zuchtungbiol.
75: 323.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R.
1963. Selection index and expected genetic advance. Natl. Acad. Sci.-Natl. Res. Counc. (PUBL). 1982.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R.
1972. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Proceedings of the Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium in honor of Dr. J. L. Lush. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 309 Clark St. Champaign, IL
61820.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R.
1975. Best Linear Unbiased Prediction estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics
31: 423.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R.
1976. A simple method of computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics
32: 69.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. R., and Quass, R. L.. 1976. Multiple trait evaluation using relatives records. J. Dairy Sci.
43: 1188.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G.
1984. On selection among groups with heterogeneous variance. Anim. Prod.
39: 473.Google Scholar
Huizinga, H. A., Korner, S., McDaniel, B. T., and Politiek, R. D.. 1986. Maternal effects due to cytoplasmic inheritance in dairy cattle: Influence on milk production and reproduction traits. Livest. Prod. Sci.
15: 11.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. W.
1986. A. further look at evidence for cytoplasmic inheritance of production traits in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci.
69: 3100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, B. W. and Schaeffer, L. R.. 1988. Reproductive technology and genetic evaluation. In-Advances in Statistical Methods for Genetic Improvement of Livestock. Editors Gianola, D. and Hammond, K.. Springer Verlag. Hiedelburg.Google Scholar
Jeon, Gwang-Joo. 1986. Prediction of sire's transmitting abilities using pedigree information from single and multiple lactations. M. S. Thesis. Iowa State University Library, Ames.Google Scholar
Lovell-Badge, R. H. and Mann, J. R.. 1986. Whole genome transfer in mammals. New Technologies in Animal Breeding. p. 103. Oxford Scientific Publications, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. T.
1987. The heritability of health-related traits in Holstein cattle. M. S. Thesis. Iowa State University Library, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
McAllister, A. J.
1986. The role of crossbreeding in breeding programs for intensive milk production in temperate climates. Proc. 3rd World Congress Applied to livestock production
IX p. 47. Lincoln, Neb.
07 16-22.Google Scholar
National Invitational Workshop on Bovine Somatotropin. 1987. Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. USDA Extension Service. 09 21-23. St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W.
1979. The genetic implications of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer in small dairy herds. 30th Annual Meeting EAAP, Harrogate.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. and Smith, C.. 1983. Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Anim. Prod.
36: 341.Google Scholar
Quass, R. L. and Pollak, E. J.. 1980. Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef testing programs. J. Anim. Sci.
51: 1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, P. D. and Vleck, L. D. Van. 1987. Lack of evidence of cytoplasmic inheritance in milk production traits in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci.
70: 837.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. M. and Smith, C.. 1987. Comparison of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) and conventional breeding schemes. Breeding Dairy Cattle Under Quota Restrictions. Bull, of the European Communities S4/83.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, L. R.
1983. Notes on Linear Model Theory, Best Linear Unbiased Prediction and Variance Component Estimation. Univ. of Guelph.
Guelph, Canada
Google Scholar
Schaeffer, L. R.
1984. Sire and cow evaluation under multiple trait models. J. Dairy Sci.
67: 1567.Google Scholar
Sidel, G. E. and Elsden, R. P.. 1988. Cloning by nuclear transplant. Hoards Dairyman. 01 p. 41.Google Scholar
Sieber, M., Freeman, A. E., and Hinz, P. N.. 1988. Comparison between factor analysis from a phenotypic and genetic correlation matrix using linear type traits of Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.
71: 477.Google Scholar
Solbu, H.
1982. Heritability estimates and progeny testing for mastitis, ketosis, and “all diseases”. Z. Tierz. Zuchtgsbiol.
101: 210.Google Scholar
Stam, P.
1986. The use of marker loci in selection for quantitative characters. New technologies in Animal Breeding. p. 170. Oxford Scientific Publications, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tess, M. W., Roedecha, C., and Robinson, O. W.. 1987. Cytoplasmic genetic effects on preweaning growth and milk yield in Hereford cattle. J. Anim. Sci.
65: 675.Google Scholar
Van Raden, P. M., Freeman, A. E., and Berger, P.J.. 1987. Relationships among production and reproduction in nulliparous and first lactation Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci.
70(Suppl. 1): 187.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. Dale. 1981. Potential genetic impact of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning, and selfing in dairy cattle. In-New Technologies in Animal Breeding. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. D. and Pollak, John. 1984. Sire evaluation methods: Past, Present, Future. Proc. of the National Invitation Workshop on genetic improvement of dairy cattle. 04 9-11, 1984. Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, L. D.
1987. Contemporary groups for genetic evaluations. J. Dairy Sci.
70: 2456.Google Scholar
Vinson, W. E.
1987. Potential bias in genetic evaluations from differences in variation within herds. J. Dairy Sci.
70: 2450.Google Scholar
Welper, R. D. and Freeman, A. E.. 1987. Predicted Differences of sires as affected by their mates and herd level. J. Dairy Sci. (Suppl. 1). 187.Google Scholar
Wiggans, G. R., Mistal, I., and Vleck, L. D. Van. 1988. Implementation of an Animal Model for Genetic Evaluation of Dairy Cattle in the United States. Presented at the Animal Workshop American Dairy Sci. Assoc. Annual Meeting, 06 26-29. Univ. of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar