Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-6mft8 Total loading time: 0.222 Render date: 2021-10-23T01:30:13.268Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Effects of female reproductive rate and mating design on genetic response and inbreeding in closed nucleus dairy herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. W. Leitch
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
C. Smith
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
E. B. Burnside
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
M. Quinton
Affiliation:
Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access

Abstract

Hierarchical (each dam mated to one sire) and factorial (each dam mated to several sires) designs involving juvenile selection in a closed nucleus breeding programme were compared for rates of genetic response and inbreeding using stochastic simulation. Numbers of sires and dams selected and herd sizes varied. Generations were discrete. Sires and dams were selected at 15 months on the basis of an estimated breeding value (EBV) calculated using selection index which considered information on close relatives. Selection was for total merit index. Matings were carried out assuming use of multiple emulation and embryo transfer (MOET) or in vitro embryo production (1VEP) technologies, over a range of reproductive parameters. Reproductive rates assumed a fixed number of potential offspring per collection with IVEP and MOET. Comparison of mating designs using MOET showed that rates of genetic response and inbreeding with factorial designs voere from 88 to 431% and 36 to 111% of those with the hierarchical design. Generally rates of genetic response were increased and inbreeding decreased by increasing the number of mates per dam due to a reduction of correlations among EBV. Reduced rates of genetic response were occasionally observed in factorial designs involving the mating of dams to large numbers of sires. This increased the generation interval due to the time to carry out the matings. Factorial designs were found to be most efficient for increasing genetic response and or decreasing inbreeding, for breeding programmes involving the selection of equal numbers of sires and dam. For the breeding programmes considered, rates of genetic response with IVEP equalled the best of the MOET designs, achieved at highest MOET rates, at the lowest level of IVEP. But at the equivalent rate of genetic response, rate of inbreeding was increased by 8%. The increased rate of inbreeding was due to the shorter generation interval with IVEP, and the increased probability of selecting related individuals assuming all donors respond to IVEP.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Armstrong, D. T., Holme, P., Irvine, B., Petersen, B. A., Stubbings, R. B., Mclean, D., Stevens, G. and Seamark, R. F. 1992. Pregnancies and live births from in vitro fertilization of calf oocytes collected by laparoscopic follicular aspiration. Theriogenology 38: 667678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, I. J. M. de and Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1994. Additive response to selection adjusted for effects of inbreeding in a closed dairy cattle nucleus assuming a large number of gametes per female. Animal Production 58: 173n180.Google Scholar
Colleau, J. J. 1985. Genetic improvement by embryo transfer within selection nuclei in dairy cattle. Genetics Selection and Evolution 17: 499538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, J. C. M. 1992. Structure of breeding programs to capitalize on reproductive technology for genetic improvement, journal of Dairy Science 75: 28802891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 3rd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Goddard, M. E. and Smith, C. 1990. Optimum number of bull sires in dairy cattle breeding, Journal of Dairy Science 73: 11131122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N. 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics, USA 28: 476490.Google ScholarPubMed
Jansen, G. and Schlote, W. 1987. Variability of genetic progress using multiple ovulation and embryo transfer in small nucleus herds of cattle. Proceedings of the symposium on biotechnology in animal breeding (ed. Weniger, J. H., Horst, P. and Iritani, A.), pp. 170180. University of Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar
Jeon, G. J., Mao, I. L., Jensen, J. and Ferris, T. A. 1990. Stochastic modelling of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer breeding schemes in small closed dairy cattle populations, journal of Dairy Science 73: 1938n1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, D. S. and Teepker, G. 1990. The effect of variability in response to superovulation on donor cow selection differentials in nucleus breeding schemes, journal of Dairy Science 73: 549554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P., Smith, C. and Dekkers, J. C. M. 1991. Potential genetic gains in dairy cattle with gamete harvesting and in vitro fertilization, journal of Dairy Science 74: 611622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruip, Th. A. M., Boni, R., Roelofsen, M. W. M., Wurth, Y. A. and Pieterse, M. C. 1993. Application of OPU for embryo production and breeding in cattle. Theriogenology 39: 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibfried-Rutledge, M. L., Critser, E. S., Parrish, J. J. and First, N. L. 1989. In vitro maturation and fertilization of bovine oocytes. Theriogenology 31: 6164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitch, H. W., Smith, C. and Burnside, E. B. 1990. Implications of in vitro fertilization technology on genetic response in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol VIV, pp. 279282.Google Scholar
Leitch, H. W., Smith, C, Burnside, E. B. and Quinton, M. 1994. Genetic response and inbreeding with different selection methods and mating designs for nucleus breeding programs of dairy cattle, Journal of Dairy Science 77: 17021718CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liboriussen, T. and Christensen, L. G. 1990. Experiences from implementation of a MOET breeding scheme for dairy cattle. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. VIV, pp. 6669.Google Scholar
Lohuis, M. M. 1993. Strategies to improve efficiency and genetic responses of progeny test programs in dairy cattle. Doctoral thesis, University ofGuelph, Guelph.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. 1990. Operational aspects of a MOET nucleus dairy breeding scheme. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. VIV, pp. 259262.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. and Smith, C. 1990. Comparison of theoretical and simulated equilibrium genetic response rates with progeny testing in dairy cattle. Animal Production 50: 207212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. 1979. The genetic implications of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer in small dairy breeds. Proceedings of the thirtieth meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Harrogate, paper Gl.ll.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. and Smith, C. 1983. Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Animal Production 36: 341353.Google Scholar
Quaas, R. L. 1976. Computing the diagonal elements and inverse of a large numerator relationship matrix. Biometrics 32: 949953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinton, M., Smith, C. and Goddard, M. E. 1992. Comparison of selection methods at the same level of inbreeding, Journal of Animal Science 70: 10601067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rochambeau, H. de and Chevalet, C. 1982. Some aspects of the genetic management of small breeds. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. VII, pp. 282287.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. 1991a. The importance of family sizes in adult multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) nucleus breeding schemes in dairy cattle. Animal Production 52: 3347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruane, J. 1991b. The effect of alternative mating designs and selection strategies on adult multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) nucleus breeding schemes in dairy cattle. Genetics Selection and Evolution 23: 4765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schans, A. van der, Rens, B. T. T. M. van, Westerlaken, L. A. J. van der and Wit, A. A. C. de. 1992. Bovine embryo production by repeated transvaginal oocyte collection and in vitro fertilization. Proceedings of the twelfth international congress on animal reproduction, The Hague, The Netherlands, vol. 3, pp. 13661368.Google Scholar
Stranden, I., Maki-Tanila, A. and Mantysaari, E. A. 1991. Genetic progress and rate of inbreeding in a closed adult MOET nucleus under different mating strategies and heritabilities. journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108: 401411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, M. and Perez-Enciso, M. 1990. Optimization of selection response under restricted inbreeding. Genetics Selection and Evolution 22: 93107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, M. and Silio, L. 1989. Genetic simulation of juvenile MOET breeding schemes in dairy cattle. In New selection schemes in cattle: nucleus programs (ed. Kalm, E. and Liboriussen, T.), European Association of Animal Production publication no. 44, p. 64.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. 1989. Modifications to MOET nucleus breeding schemes to improve rates of genetic progress and decrease rates of inbreeding in dairy cattle. Animal Production 49: 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. and Smith, C. 1988. The value of indicator traits in the genetic improvement of dairy cattle. Animal Production 46: 333345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of female reproductive rate and mating design on genetic response and inbreeding in closed nucleus dairy herds
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of female reproductive rate and mating design on genetic response and inbreeding in closed nucleus dairy herds
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of female reproductive rate and mating design on genetic response and inbreeding in closed nucleus dairy herds
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *