Systematic environmental influences and variances due to direct and maternal effects and trends for yearling weight in cattle

Abstract

Pedigree yearling records from 1021 local Tuli calves born at Matopos Research Station were analyzed for non genetic factors, genetic parame ers and trends on the yearling weight. It was found that s re year of b rth, sex of calf age of dam had s gn f cant effect (p < 0.01) on a growth trait. The nconsistency o literature estimates indicated the importance o est mation o environmental factors that affect yearling weight within specific experimental herds and environment. Model incorporating both direct and maternal additive genetic effect, covariance and correlations of direct-maternal and permanent environmental maternal effects was adopted for the study Direct and maternal heritabi ty est mates of 0.18 ± 0.001 and 0.04 ± 0 001 were observed, respect vely. Direct-maternal genetic correlat on was low and posi ve, 0.07± 0.012. The regression of average direct breeding values on year was almost zero and the regression of average maternal breeding values on year 0.03 kg/yr. Correction of environmental effects was necessary to increase accuracy for selection of yearling weight in local Tuli cattle. Maternal genetic effects should be included in a model of covariance components estimation at 12 months of age.

Selection of Sumba Ongole (So) Cattle Based on Breeding Value and Performance Test

“…High heritability value of YW365 were obtained in several Indonesian beef cattle such as Bali, Brahman cross, Simmental and Aceh are 0.54±0.32; 0.44±0.14; 0.43±0.19; and 0.49±0.59; respectively (Kaswati et al, 2013;Duma and Tanari, 2008;Suhada et al, 2009;Putra et al, 2014). Previous studies showed that the heritability value of YW365 in several cattle breeds such as Red Chittagong, Tuli, Nguni, Golpayeganian, Bhagnari x Droughtmaster, Nellore and South African Limousin were 0.50±0.10; 0.18±0.001; 0.25; 0.48±0.07; 0.19±0.24; 0.36±0.01; and 0.16±0.03; respectively (Afroz et al, 2011;Assan and Nyoni, 2009;Norris et al, 2004;Khan et al, 1998;Regatieri et al, 2012;Niekerk and Neser, 2006).. Table 7 shows the top ten of SO cattle based on breeding value of yearling weight (BV365). The highest BV365 in bull and heifer in this study were 66.05 kg (ID: KBO175) and 41.89 kg (ID: KAR2091), respectively.…”

“…The YW 365 of SO cattle in this study was higher than other Indonesian native cattle at the previous studies. Assan and Nyoni (2009) reported that the yearling weight of Tuli cattle were 180.89+1.73 and 161.29+1.59. Afroz et al, 2011 reported that the average of YW 365 in Red Chittagong cattle are 64.00+3.30 and 68.40+3.20 kg for male and female, respectively.…”

Genetic parameters for scrotal circumference, frame score and yearling weight of Mexican Charolais and Charbray young bulls

“…Our figure was smaller than estimates (0.50, 0.38) reported by Bergen et al (2005) and Schiermiester et al (2015), respectively, for Canadian and American crossbred cattle. Moreover, it was greater than the Pico et al (2004) and Assan and Nyoni (2009) estimates (0.14, 0.18), respectively. The literature review by Koots et al (1994) reported 0.33 and 0.35 weighted and unweighted heritability means for YW, respectively, similar to our estimate.…”

Genome-wide association study and predictive ability for growth traits in Nellore cattle

“…The young animal selection for growth traits should be performed in a careful way, as it may result in late maturing animals and higher adult cow weight being unfavorable under grazing conditions (PEREIRA et al, 2010). In relation to the growth in the post-weaning phase, it presents an individual genetic potential direct evaluation which demonstrates great economic importance, due to the high-performance relation in this period with carcass yield, and consequently the meat production (ASSAN; NYONI, 2009;BOLIGON et al, 2009).…”