Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T07:52:46.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multitrait and repeatability estimates of random effects on litter size in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C. Hagger
C. Hagger*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
† E-mail: hagger@inw.agrl.ethz.ch
Get access

Abstract

Five data sets with records of first, second and third lambings of the White Alpine sheep (WAS1, WAS2), the Brown-Headed Meat sheep (BFS), the Black-Brown Mountain sheep (SBS) and the Valais Black-Nose sheep (SNS) of Switzerland were used to estimate phenotypic and genetic parameters for litter size using a multitrait and a repeatability model by the REML method. The sets contained litter information from 26 274, 25 165, 18 913, 14 953 and 21 726 ewes, respectively. Average numbers of litters per ewe were between 2·09 and 2·31. Average litter sizes at birth were between 1·36 and 1·57 lambs in first, between 1·52 and 1·75 in second and, between 1·56 and 1·86 in third parities. Multitrait estimates of heritability for size of first litters were 0·164, 0·157, 0·117, 0·223 and 0·116 for the WAS1, WAS2, BFS, SBS and SNS data, respectively. The corresponding estimates were 0·176, 0·165, 0·140, 0·208 and 0·134 for second and, 0·141, 0·155, 0·121, 0·145 and 0·107 for third litters. The systematic increase in phenotypic variances from first to third litter within data sets favoured the multivariate over the repeatability approach. Genetic correlations between size of the first three litters were, with one exception, above 0·927. Random flock ✕ year and sire of litter effects contributed between 2·2% and 13·2% and between 0·7% and 4·7% to the phenotypic variance of the traits, respectively. Residuals contributed between 70·6% and 84·2% to this parameter, estimates for the third litter were always highest. Heritability estimates from the repeatability model were smaller than the smallest multivariate estimates. Expected genetic gain in litter size from selection on the multitrait model was equal to the achieved response from the repeatability approach.

Keywords

genetic correlationheritabilitylitter sizerepeatabilityselection responses
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 209 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Altarriba, J., Varona, L., L. A., Garcia-Cortés and Moreno, C. 1998. Bayesian inference of variance components for litter size in Rasa Aragonesa sheep. Journal of Animal Science 76: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brash, L. D., Fogarty, N. M. and Gilmour, A. R. 1994. Reproductive performance and genetic parameters for Australian Dorset sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45: 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. H., Morris, C. A. and Dodds, K. G. 1998. Genetic studies of prolificacy in New Zealand sheep. Animal Science 67: 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikje, E. D. 1975. Studies on sheep production records. VII. Genetic, phenotypic and environmental parameters for productivity of ewes. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 25: 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, N. M. and Gilmour, A. R. 1998. Effect of season on lambing performance of selection and control flock ewes tested in an 8-monthly lambing system. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 27, pp. 55–58.Google Scholar
Gates, P. J. and Urioste, J. I. 1995. Heritability and sire genetic trend for litter size in Swedish sheep estimated with linear and threshold models. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 45: 228–235.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E. 1998. VCE4 user’s guide and reference manual version 1.3. Federal Agricultural Research Center, Mariensee, Germany.Google Scholar
Hagger, C. 2000. Genetic and environmental influences on size of 1st litter in sheep, estimated by the REML method. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 117: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagger, C. and Hofer, A. 1990. Genetic analyses of calving traits in the Swiss Black and White, Braunvieh and Simmental breeds by REML and MAPP procedures. Livestock Production Science 24: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagger, C. and Schneeberger, M. 1995. Influences of amount of pedigree information on computing time and of model assumptions on restricted maximum-likelihood estimates of population parameters in Swiss Black-Brown Mountain Sheep. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2213–2219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorgensen, J. N. 1994. Estimation of genetic parameters for litter size in sheep using a non-linear method. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 44: 8–11.Google Scholar
Kadarmideen, H. N., Thompson, R. and Simm, G. 2000. Linear and threshold model genetic parameters for disease, fertility and milk production in dairy cattle. Animal Science 71: 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. W., Waldron, D. F. and L. D., Van Vleck 2000. Parameter estimates for number of lambs born at different ages and for 18-month body weight of Rambouillet sheep. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2086–2090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ligda, Ch., Gabriilidis, G., Papadopoulos, Th. and Georgoudis, A. 2000. Estimation of genetic parameters for production traits of Chios sheep using a multitrait animal model. Livestock Production Science 66: 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, C. A. P., Thomas, D. L., Gianola, D., Perez-Enciso, M. and Young, L. D. 1997a. Genetic analysis of discrete reproductive traits in sheep using linear and non-linear models. II. Goodness of fit and predictive ability. Journal of Animal Science 75: 88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matos, C. A. P., Thomas, D. L., Gianola, D., Tempelman, R. J. and Young, L. D. 1997b. Genetic analysis of discrete reproductive traits in sheep using linear and nonlinear models. I. Estimation of genetic parameters. Journal of Animal Science 75: 76–87 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumaier, A. and Groeneveld, E. 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okut, H., Bromley, C. M., L. D., Van Vleck and Snowder, G. D. 1999. Genotypic expression at different ages. I. Prolificacy traits of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2357–2365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olesen, I., Perez-Enciso, M., Gianola, D. and Thomas, D. L. 1994. A comparison of normal and non-normal mixed models for number of lambs born in Norwegian sheep. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1166–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, I., Svendsen, M., Klemetsdal, G. and Steine, T. A. 1995. Application of a multiple-trait animal model for genetic evaluation of maternal and lamb traits in Norwegian sheep. Animal Science 60: 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. and Notter, D. R. 2000. Genetic analysis of litter size in Targhee, Suffolk, and Polypay sheep. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2113–2120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visscher, P. M., Hill, W. G. and Thompson, R. 1992. Univariate and multivariate parameter estimates for milk production traits using an animal model. II. Efficiency of selection when using simplified covariance structures. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 24: 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar