Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle
Abstract Heifer pregnancy (HPG) and Stayability (STAY) are female reproductive traits that have EPD reported by the Red Angus Association of America. Challenges arise when making genetic predictions for these traits. Specifically, HPG and STAY phenotypes can only be collected on females retained in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 2018-09, Vol.96 (10), p.4100-4111 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 4111 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 4100 |
| container_title | Journal of animal science |
| container_volume | 96 |
| creator | Boldt, Ryan J Speidel, Scott E Thomas, Milton G Enns, R Mark |
| description | Abstract
Heifer pregnancy (HPG) and Stayability (STAY) are female reproductive traits that have EPD reported by the Red Angus Association of America. Challenges arise when making genetic predictions for these traits. Specifically, HPG and STAY phenotypes can only be collected on females retained in the breeding herd and have low heritability estimates. Additionally, STAY is measured late in an animal’s life. The objective of this research was to investigate the genetic relationships between HPG or STAY and 13 other traits, which included measurements of growth, carcass, ultrasound, and scrotal circumference. For STAY relationships between mature weight (MW), body condition score (BCS), teat score (TS), and udder suspension score (US) were also evaluated. Data from 142,146 and 164,235 animals were used in the analyses for HPG and STAY, respectively. Genetic relationships were investigated using a series of 2 trait animal models and a REML procedure. In all analyses, the appropriate contemporary groups were included as a fixed effect, and direct genetic as a random effect. Additional fixed effects included as follows: sex for weight, carcass and ultrasound traits, age of dam for weight traits, and age of measurement for ultrasound, carcass, BCS, udder traits, and MW. Maternal genetic effects for preweaning gain (Pre-WG), weaning weight (WW), and yearling weight (YW) were also modeled. Permanent environmental effects of the dam were modeled for the traits Pre-WG and WW. Permanent environment of the individual for the traits MW, BCS, TS, and US was also included. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01 for HPG and STAY, respectively. Heritability estimates for direct genetic effects of production traits were moderate to high in magnitude, maternal heritability estimates were low, and permanent environmental effects accounted for 0.00 to 0.18 of the total variation. The strongest genetic correlations were those among Pre-WGD (0.24 ± 0.08), WWD (0.18 ± 0.08), YWD (0.20 ± 0.07), ultrasound rib eye area direct (0.16 ± 0.08), and ultrasound backfat direct (0.14 ± 0.08) and HPG. The highest genetic correlations were between STAY and WWM (0.54 ± 0.05), YWM (0.36 ± 0.07), backfat (0.53 ± 0.20), marbling score (0.40 ± 0.20), UREA (0.19 ± 0.07), ultrasound backfat (0.37 ± 0.07), TS (0.30 ± 0.11), and US (0.23 ± 0.11). Relationships between HPG or STAY and other traits were minimal. These results suggest that genetic relationships exist between HPG or STA |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jas/sky294 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6162596</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/jas/sky294</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2124410180</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-fe1c6dc49d619de907c81deb699e5722b2805f3f115897e29d533a1548886e743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFrFTEUhYMo9lnd-AMkIIIIY3OTSWayKZSiVSkIouuQl9ypec5LxiQjvH9v5NWiLlzdxfn4OJdDyFNgr4Fpcbaz5ax8O3Dd3yMbkFx2ApS4TzaMcejGEfgJeVTKjjHgUsuH5EQwzvoWbMiHK4xYg6OLzXaPFXOhU8p0wlzDHOqB2ujpkpNfXQ0p0pptqIWGSD-hpxfxZi3U2VpnfEweTHYu-OT2npIvb998vnzXXX-8en95cd25XqjaTQhOeddrr0B71GxwI3jcKq1RDpxv-cjkJCYAOeoBufZSCAuy9R0VDr04JedH77Ju9-gdxtZpNksOe5sPJtlg_k5i-Gpu0g-jQLX_VRO8vBXk9H3FUs0-FIfzbCOmtRgOjGsYpOYNff4Puktrju29RvG-BwYja9SrI-VyKiXjdFcGmPk1kWkTmeNEDX72Z_079PcmDXhxBNK6_E_0E17JmgQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2124410180</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Boldt, Ryan J ; Speidel, Scott E ; Thomas, Milton G ; Enns, R Mark</creator><creatorcontrib>Boldt, Ryan J ; Speidel, Scott E ; Thomas, Milton G ; Enns, R Mark</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Heifer pregnancy (HPG) and Stayability (STAY) are female reproductive traits that have EPD reported by the Red Angus Association of America. Challenges arise when making genetic predictions for these traits. Specifically, HPG and STAY phenotypes can only be collected on females retained in the breeding herd and have low heritability estimates. Additionally, STAY is measured late in an animal’s life. The objective of this research was to investigate the genetic relationships between HPG or STAY and 13 other traits, which included measurements of growth, carcass, ultrasound, and scrotal circumference. For STAY relationships between mature weight (MW), body condition score (BCS), teat score (TS), and udder suspension score (US) were also evaluated. Data from 142,146 and 164,235 animals were used in the analyses for HPG and STAY, respectively. Genetic relationships were investigated using a series of 2 trait animal models and a REML procedure. In all analyses, the appropriate contemporary groups were included as a fixed effect, and direct genetic as a random effect. Additional fixed effects included as follows: sex for weight, carcass and ultrasound traits, age of dam for weight traits, and age of measurement for ultrasound, carcass, BCS, udder traits, and MW. Maternal genetic effects for preweaning gain (Pre-WG), weaning weight (WW), and yearling weight (YW) were also modeled. Permanent environmental effects of the dam were modeled for the traits Pre-WG and WW. Permanent environment of the individual for the traits MW, BCS, TS, and US was also included. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01 for HPG and STAY, respectively. Heritability estimates for direct genetic effects of production traits were moderate to high in magnitude, maternal heritability estimates were low, and permanent environmental effects accounted for 0.00 to 0.18 of the total variation. The strongest genetic correlations were those among Pre-WGD (0.24 ± 0.08), WWD (0.18 ± 0.08), YWD (0.20 ± 0.07), ultrasound rib eye area direct (0.16 ± 0.08), and ultrasound backfat direct (0.14 ± 0.08) and HPG. The highest genetic correlations were between STAY and WWM (0.54 ± 0.05), YWM (0.36 ± 0.07), backfat (0.53 ± 0.20), marbling score (0.40 ± 0.20), UREA (0.19 ± 0.07), ultrasound backfat (0.37 ± 0.07), TS (0.30 ± 0.11), and US (0.23 ± 0.11). Relationships between HPG or STAY and other traits were minimal. These results suggest that genetic relationships exist between HPG or STAY and other more densely recorded traits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky294</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30204881</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animal Genetics and Genomics ; Animal models ; Animal reproduction ; Animals ; Body Weight - genetics ; Breeding ; Cattle ; Cattle - genetics ; Cattle - physiology ; Environmental effects ; Estimates ; Female ; Females ; Fertility ; Fertility - genetics ; Genetic diversity ; Genetic effects ; Genetics ; Heritability ; Livestock breeding ; Male ; Mammary Glands, Animal ; Phenotype ; Phenotypes ; Pregnancy ; Scrotum ; Udder ; Ultrasonography - veterinary ; Ultrasound ; Urea ; Weaning ; Weight</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2018-09, Vol.96 (10), p.4100-4111</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Oct 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-fe1c6dc49d619de907c81deb699e5722b2805f3f115897e29d533a1548886e743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-fe1c6dc49d619de907c81deb699e5722b2805f3f115897e29d533a1548886e743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162596/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162596/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,1579,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30204881$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boldt, Ryan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speidel, Scott E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Milton G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Enns, R Mark</creatorcontrib><title>Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description>Abstract
Heifer pregnancy (HPG) and Stayability (STAY) are female reproductive traits that have EPD reported by the Red Angus Association of America. Challenges arise when making genetic predictions for these traits. Specifically, HPG and STAY phenotypes can only be collected on females retained in the breeding herd and have low heritability estimates. Additionally, STAY is measured late in an animal’s life. The objective of this research was to investigate the genetic relationships between HPG or STAY and 13 other traits, which included measurements of growth, carcass, ultrasound, and scrotal circumference. For STAY relationships between mature weight (MW), body condition score (BCS), teat score (TS), and udder suspension score (US) were also evaluated. Data from 142,146 and 164,235 animals were used in the analyses for HPG and STAY, respectively. Genetic relationships were investigated using a series of 2 trait animal models and a REML procedure. In all analyses, the appropriate contemporary groups were included as a fixed effect, and direct genetic as a random effect. Additional fixed effects included as follows: sex for weight, carcass and ultrasound traits, age of dam for weight traits, and age of measurement for ultrasound, carcass, BCS, udder traits, and MW. Maternal genetic effects for preweaning gain (Pre-WG), weaning weight (WW), and yearling weight (YW) were also modeled. Permanent environmental effects of the dam were modeled for the traits Pre-WG and WW. Permanent environment of the individual for the traits MW, BCS, TS, and US was also included. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01 for HPG and STAY, respectively. Heritability estimates for direct genetic effects of production traits were moderate to high in magnitude, maternal heritability estimates were low, and permanent environmental effects accounted for 0.00 to 0.18 of the total variation. The strongest genetic correlations were those among Pre-WGD (0.24 ± 0.08), WWD (0.18 ± 0.08), YWD (0.20 ± 0.07), ultrasound rib eye area direct (0.16 ± 0.08), and ultrasound backfat direct (0.14 ± 0.08) and HPG. The highest genetic correlations were between STAY and WWM (0.54 ± 0.05), YWM (0.36 ± 0.07), backfat (0.53 ± 0.20), marbling score (0.40 ± 0.20), UREA (0.19 ± 0.07), ultrasound backfat (0.37 ± 0.07), TS (0.30 ± 0.11), and US (0.23 ± 0.11). Relationships between HPG or STAY and other traits were minimal. These results suggest that genetic relationships exist between HPG or STAY and other more densely recorded traits.</description><subject>Animal Genetics and Genomics</subject><subject>Animal models</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Body Weight - genetics</subject><subject>Breeding</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cattle - genetics</subject><subject>Cattle - physiology</subject><subject>Environmental effects</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Fertility - genetics</subject><subject>Genetic diversity</subject><subject>Genetic effects</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Heritability</subject><subject>Livestock breeding</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammary Glands, Animal</subject><subject>Phenotype</subject><subject>Phenotypes</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Scrotum</subject><subject>Udder</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - veterinary</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Urea</subject><subject>Weaning</subject><subject>Weight</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFrFTEUhYMo9lnd-AMkIIIIY3OTSWayKZSiVSkIouuQl9ypec5LxiQjvH9v5NWiLlzdxfn4OJdDyFNgr4Fpcbaz5ax8O3Dd3yMbkFx2ApS4TzaMcejGEfgJeVTKjjHgUsuH5EQwzvoWbMiHK4xYg6OLzXaPFXOhU8p0wlzDHOqB2ujpkpNfXQ0p0pptqIWGSD-hpxfxZi3U2VpnfEweTHYu-OT2npIvb998vnzXXX-8en95cd25XqjaTQhOeddrr0B71GxwI3jcKq1RDpxv-cjkJCYAOeoBufZSCAuy9R0VDr04JedH77Ju9-gdxtZpNksOe5sPJtlg_k5i-Gpu0g-jQLX_VRO8vBXk9H3FUs0-FIfzbCOmtRgOjGsYpOYNff4Puktrju29RvG-BwYja9SrI-VyKiXjdFcGmPk1kWkTmeNEDX72Z_079PcmDXhxBNK6_E_0E17JmgQ</recordid><startdate>20180929</startdate><enddate>20180929</enddate><creator>Boldt, Ryan J</creator><creator>Speidel, Scott E</creator><creator>Thomas, Milton G</creator><creator>Enns, R Mark</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180929</creationdate><title>Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle</title><author>Boldt, Ryan J ; Speidel, Scott E ; Thomas, Milton G ; Enns, R Mark</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-fe1c6dc49d619de907c81deb699e5722b2805f3f115897e29d533a1548886e743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Animal Genetics and Genomics</topic><topic>Animal models</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Body Weight - genetics</topic><topic>Breeding</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cattle - genetics</topic><topic>Cattle - physiology</topic><topic>Environmental effects</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Fertility - genetics</topic><topic>Genetic diversity</topic><topic>Genetic effects</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Heritability</topic><topic>Livestock breeding</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammary Glands, Animal</topic><topic>Phenotype</topic><topic>Phenotypes</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Scrotum</topic><topic>Udder</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - veterinary</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Urea</topic><topic>Weaning</topic><topic>Weight</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boldt, Ryan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speidel, Scott E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Milton G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Enns, R Mark</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boldt, Ryan J</au><au>Speidel, Scott E</au><au>Thomas, Milton G</au><au>Enns, R Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2018-09-29</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>96</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>4100</spage><epage>4111</epage><pages>4100-4111</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Heifer pregnancy (HPG) and Stayability (STAY) are female reproductive traits that have EPD reported by the Red Angus Association of America. Challenges arise when making genetic predictions for these traits. Specifically, HPG and STAY phenotypes can only be collected on females retained in the breeding herd and have low heritability estimates. Additionally, STAY is measured late in an animal’s life. The objective of this research was to investigate the genetic relationships between HPG or STAY and 13 other traits, which included measurements of growth, carcass, ultrasound, and scrotal circumference. For STAY relationships between mature weight (MW), body condition score (BCS), teat score (TS), and udder suspension score (US) were also evaluated. Data from 142,146 and 164,235 animals were used in the analyses for HPG and STAY, respectively. Genetic relationships were investigated using a series of 2 trait animal models and a REML procedure. In all analyses, the appropriate contemporary groups were included as a fixed effect, and direct genetic as a random effect. Additional fixed effects included as follows: sex for weight, carcass and ultrasound traits, age of dam for weight traits, and age of measurement for ultrasound, carcass, BCS, udder traits, and MW. Maternal genetic effects for preweaning gain (Pre-WG), weaning weight (WW), and yearling weight (YW) were also modeled. Permanent environmental effects of the dam were modeled for the traits Pre-WG and WW. Permanent environment of the individual for the traits MW, BCS, TS, and US was also included. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.01 and 0.10 ± 0.01 for HPG and STAY, respectively. Heritability estimates for direct genetic effects of production traits were moderate to high in magnitude, maternal heritability estimates were low, and permanent environmental effects accounted for 0.00 to 0.18 of the total variation. The strongest genetic correlations were those among Pre-WGD (0.24 ± 0.08), WWD (0.18 ± 0.08), YWD (0.20 ± 0.07), ultrasound rib eye area direct (0.16 ± 0.08), and ultrasound backfat direct (0.14 ± 0.08) and HPG. The highest genetic correlations were between STAY and WWM (0.54 ± 0.05), YWM (0.36 ± 0.07), backfat (0.53 ± 0.20), marbling score (0.40 ± 0.20), UREA (0.19 ± 0.07), ultrasound backfat (0.37 ± 0.07), TS (0.30 ± 0.11), and US (0.23 ± 0.11). Relationships between HPG or STAY and other traits were minimal. These results suggest that genetic relationships exist between HPG or STAY and other more densely recorded traits.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>30204881</pmid><doi>10.1093/jas/sky294</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-8812 |
| ispartof | Journal of animal science, 2018-09, Vol.96 (10), p.4100-4111 |
| issn | 0021-8812 1525-3163 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6162596 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); PubMed Central |
| subjects | Animal Genetics and Genomics Animal models Animal reproduction Animals Body Weight - genetics Breeding Cattle Cattle - genetics Cattle - physiology Environmental effects Estimates Female Females Fertility Fertility - genetics Genetic diversity Genetic effects Genetics Heritability Livestock breeding Male Mammary Glands, Animal Phenotype Phenotypes Pregnancy Scrotum Udder Ultrasonography - veterinary Ultrasound Urea Weaning Weight |
| title | Genetic parameters for fertility and production traits in Red Angus cattle |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T20%3A05%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Genetic%20parameters%20for%20fertility%20and%20production%20traits%20in%20Red%20Angus%20cattle&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Boldt,%20Ryan%20J&rft.date=2018-09-29&rft.volume=96&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=4100&rft.epage=4111&rft.pages=4100-4111&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jas/sky294&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2124410180%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2124410180&rft_id=info:pmid/30204881&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jas/sky294&rfr_iscdi=true |