Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T23:18:17.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype by production environment interaction for birth and weaning weights in a population of composite beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2013

M. L. Santana Jr ,
J. P. Eler ,
A. B. Bignardi  and
J. B. S. Ferraz
M. L. Santana Jr*
Affiliation:
Grupo de Melhoramento Animal de Mato Grosso (GMAT), Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Tecnológicas, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Campus Universitário de Rondonópolis, MT-270, Km 06, CEP 78735-901 Rondonópolis, MT, Brazil
J. P. Eler
Affiliation:
Grupo de Melhoramento Animal e Biotecnologia (GMAB), Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade de São Paulo, C. Postal 23, CEP 13635-970 Pirassununga, SP, Brazil
A. B. Bignardi
Affiliation:
Grupo de Melhoramento Animal de Mato Grosso (GMAT), Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Tecnológicas, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Campus Universitário de Rondonópolis, MT-270, Km 06, CEP 78735-901 Rondonópolis, MT, Brazil
J. B. S. Ferraz
Affiliation:
Grupo de Melhoramento Animal e Biotecnologia (GMAB), Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade de São Paulo, C. Postal 23, CEP 13635-970 Pirassununga, SP, Brazil
*
†E-mail: 10mario@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The objectives of the present study were: (1) to evaluate the importance of genotype×production environment interaction for the genetic evaluation of birth weight (BW) and weaning weight (WW) in a population of composite beef cattle in Brazil, and (2) to investigate the importance of sire×contemporary group interaction (S×CG) to model G×E and improve the accuracy of prediction in routine genetic evaluations of this population. Analyses were performed with one, two (favorable and unfavorable) or three (favorable, intermediate, unfavorable) different definitions of production environments. Thus, BW and WW records of animals in a favorable environment were assigned to either trait 1, in an intermediate environment to trait 2 or in an unfavorable environment to trait 3. The (co)variance components were estimated using Gibbs sampling in single-, bi- or three-trait animal models according to the definition of number of production environments. In general, the estimates of genetic parameters for BW and WW were similar between environments. The additive genetic correlations between production environments were close to unity for BW; however, when examining the highest posterior density intervals, the correlation between favorable and unfavorable environments reached a value of only 0.70, a fact that may lead to changes in the ranking of sires across environments. The posterior mean genetic correlation between direct effects was 0.63 in favorable and unfavorable environments for WW. When S×CG was included in two- or three-trait analyses, all direct genetic correlations were close to unity, suggesting that there was no evidence of a genotype×production environment interaction. Furthermore, the model including S×CG contributed to prevent overestimation of the accuracy of breeding values of sires, provided a lower error of prediction for both direct and maternal breeding values, lower squared bias, residual variance and deviance information criterion than the model omitting S×CG. Thus, the model that included S×CG can therefore be considered the best model on the basis of these criteria. The genotype×production environment interaction should not be neglected in the genetic evaluation of BW and WW in the present population of beef cattle. The inclusion of S×CG in the model is a feasible and plausible alternative to model the effects of G×E in the genetic evaluations.

Keywords

beef cattlecontemporary groupgenotype by environment interactiongenetic evaluationgrowth
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 379 - 387
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Albuquerque, LG and Meyer, K 2001. Estimates of covariance functions for growth from birth to 630 days of age in Nelore Cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2776–2789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, TE and Schaeffer, LR 1987. Accounting for covariances among test day milk yields in dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araújo, CV, Torres, RA, Costa, CN, Pereira, CS, Lopes, PS, Euclydes, RF and Torres Filho, RA 2001. Effect of the sire-by-herd interaction in the genetic evaluation for milk yield of Holstein cows in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 30, 1000–1006.Google Scholar
Bertrand, JK, Berger, PJ and Willham, RL 1985. Sire×environment interactions in beef cattle weaning weight field data. Journal of Animal Science 60, 1396–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertrand, JK, Hough, JD and Benyshek, LL 1987. Sire×environment interactions and genetic correlations of sire progeny performance across regions in dam-adjusted field data. Journal of Animal Science 64, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BIF 1986. Guidelines for uniform beef improvement programs. Beef Improvement Federation, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Bohmanova, J, Miglior, F, Jamrozik, J, Misztal, I and Sullivan, PG 2008. Comparison of random regression models with Legendre polynomials and linear splines for production traits and somatic cell score of Canadian Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3627–3638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradfield, MJ, Graser, H-U and Johnston, DJ 1997. Investigation of genotype×production environment interaction for weaning weight in the Santa Gertrudis breed in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 48, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, HM 2012. Importance of adaptation and genotype×environment interactions in tropical beef breeding systems. Animal 6, 729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mattos, D, Bertrand, JK and Misztal, I 2000. Investigation of genotype×environment interactions for weaning weight for Herefords in three countries. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2121–2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz I del, PS, Oliveira, HN, Bezerra, LAF and Lôbo, RB 2011. Genotype by environment interaction in Nelore cattle from five Brazilian states. Genetics and Molecular Biology 34, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eler, JP, Van Vleck, LD, Ferraz, JB and Lobo, RB 1995. Estimation of variances due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Nelore cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3253–3258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eler, JP, Ferraz, JBS, Golden, BL and Pereira, E 2000. Influence of sire×herd interaction on the estimation of correlation between direct and maternal genetic effects in Nellore cattle. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 29, 1642–1648.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1952. The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 86, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, JBS, Eler, JP and Golden, BL 1999. A formação do composto Montana Tropical. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal 23, 115–117.Google Scholar
Lopes, JS, Rorato, PRN, Weber, T, Boligon, AA, Comin, JG and Dornelles, MA 2008. Genotype and environment interaction effect on weights at birth, 205 and 550 days of age of Nellore cattle in the South Region of Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 37, 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maniatis, N and Pollott, GE 2003. The impact of data structure on genetic (co)variance components of early growth in sheep, estimated using an animal model with maternal effects. Journal of Animal Science 81, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K 1987. Estimates of variance due to sire×herd interactions and environmental covariances between paternal half-sibs for first lactation dairy production. Livestock Production Science 17, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K 1995. Estimates of genetic parameters and breeding values for New Zealand and Australian Angus cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 46, 1219–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T and Lee, DH 2002. Blupf90 and related programs. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 19 to 23 August 2002, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Mourão, GB, Ferraz, JBS, Eler, JP, Balieiro, JCC, Bueno, RS, Mattos, EC and Figueiredo, LGG 2007. Genetic parameters for growth traits of a Brazilian Bos taurus×Bos indicus beef composite. Genetics and Molecular Research 6, 1190–1200.Google Scholar
Nephawe, KA, Neser, FWC, Roux, CZ, Theron, HE, van der Westhuizen, J and Erasmus, GJ 1999. Sire×ecological region interaction in Bonsmara cattle. South African Journal of Animal Science 29, 189–201.Google Scholar
Neser, FWC, Konstantinov, KV and Erasmus, GJ 1996. The inclusion of herd-year-season by sire interaction in the estimation of genetic parameters in Bonsmara cattle. South African Journal of Animal Science 26, 75–78.Google Scholar
Robertson, A 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santana, ML Jr, Eler, JP, Cardoso, FF, Albuquerque, LG and Ferraz, JBS 2013. Phenotypic plasticity of composite beef cattle performance using reaction norms model with unknown covariate. Animal 7, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santana, ML Jr, Eler, JP, Cardoso, FF, Albuquerque, LG, Bignardi, AB and Ferraz, JBS 2012. Genotype by environment interaction for birth and weaning weights of composite beef cattle in different regions of Brazil. Livestock Science 149, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP and van der Linde, A 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 64, 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, PG, Wilton, JW, Schaeffer, LR, Jansen, GJ, Robinson, JAB and Allen, OB 2005. Genetic evaluation strategies for multiple traits and countries. Livestock Production Science 92, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar