Genotype by environment interactions for growth in Red Angus

Fennewald, Dennis; Weaber, R. L.; Lamberson, W. R.

doi:10.2527/jas2016.0846

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second approach is using a reaction norm model which requires a continuous environmental descriptor. This approach allows the characterization of the trajectory of animal performance across the environmental gradient (Ravagnolo and Misztal, 2000;Pegolo et al, 2011;Cardoso and Tempelman, 2012;Hammami et al, 2015;Fennewald et al, 2017) The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of genotype by nutritional environment interaction on growth and carcass traits in a composite beef cattle breed using a multi-trait and reaction norm model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genotype × prenatal and post-weaning nutritional environment interaction in a composite beef cattle breed using reaction norms and a multi-trait model

Hay

Roberts

2018

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental effects have been shown to influence several economically important traits in beef cattle. In this study, genotype × nutritional environment interaction has been evaluated in a composite beef cattle breed (50% Red Angus, 25% Charolais, 25% Tarentaise). Four nutritional environments (marginal-restricted [MARG-RES], marginal-control [MARG-CTRL], adequate-restricted [ADEQ-RES], and adequate-control [ADEQ-CTRL]) were created based on two levels of winter supplement provided to dams grazing winter range during gestation (MARG and ADEQ) and two levels of input to offspring during post-weaning development (RES and CTRL). Genetic parameters of average daily gain (ADG) during the 140-d post-wean trial, yearling weight (YW), and ultrasound measurement of fat depth (FAT) at the 12th rib and intramuscular fat percentage (IMF) of 3,020 individuals in the four environments were estimated. The heritabilities estimated using a single trait mixed linear model were: ADG: 0.21, 0.23, 0.19 and 0.21; YW: 0.27, 0.33, 0.20 and 0.26; FAT: 0.30, 0.29, 0.29, 0.55; IMF: 0.45, 0.51, 0.33, 0.53 for MARG-RES, ADEQ-RES, MARG-CTRL and ADEQ-CTRL, respectively. The extent of genotype × environment interaction was modeled using two separate methods: reaction norms and multi-trait models. The genetic correlations were estimated using a multi-trait model for ADG, YW, FAT and IMF. Growth traits (ADG, YW) and FAT showed correlations less than 0.80 across the four different environments indicating genotype by environment interaction. For example, genetic correlation for ADG between MARG-CTRL and MARG-RES was 0.65 and 0.73 between ADEQ-RES and MARG-RES. In this example, the former genetic correlation corresponds to differences in post-weaning nutritional environment, and the later represents a nutritional difference imposed on dams (i.e., prenatal environment), potentially mediated via fetal programming. The reaction norm model results were in concordance with the multi-trait model, genotype by environment interaction had a higher effect on traits with a lower heritability.

show abstract