Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T03:55:30.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic correlations among milk yield, morphology, performance test traits and somatic cells in dual-purpose Rendena breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2017

C. Sartori ,
N. Guzzo ,
S. Mazza  and
R. Mantovani
C. Sartori*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Viale dell’Universita’, 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
N. Guzzo
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Viale dell’Universita’, 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
S. Mazza
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Viale dell’Universita’, 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
R. Mantovani
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Viale dell’Universita’, 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
*
†E-mail: cristina.sartori@unipd.it
Get access

Abstract

Selection in native local breeds needs great carefulness due to the small population size and the risk of inbreeding. Furthermore, most breeds are dual-purpose, and milk and beef attitudes are antagonistic. For preservation purposes functional traits need to be considered. Focusing on the small local Rendena cattle, this study aimed to analyse the genetic correlations among milk, beef and udder health traits and the response to selection predicted under different scenarios. The study considered milk, fat and protein yields (MY), factor scores for udder volume (UV), conformation (UC) and muscularity obtained from type traits scored on primiparous cows, and performance test traits (PT) measured on young bulls at test station: average daily gain, in vivo SEUROP fleshiness, in vivo dressing percentage. Somatic cell score (SCS) was considered as a functional trait, with a possibility of restricting its genetic gain to zero. The study considered 281 497 MY test-day data collected on 16 974 cows, and data from linear type evaluation on 11 992 primiparous cows for factor scores. The PT data were recorded on 1428 young bulls, and SCS obtained from cell counts at milk recording. Bi-trait restricted maximum likelihood animal model analyses were performed to assess genetic parameters. Heritability varied from 0.157 (fat) to 0.442 (dressing percentage). Udder volume and MY resulted positively genetically correlated (average correlation 0.427), whereas the low-negative genetic correlation between MY and UC (−0.141) suggested a negative impact of milk gain on udder form. Beef traits of factor muscularity and PT showed medium-high favourable genetic correlations (from 0.357 to 0.984), excluding a null correlation between daily gain and muscularity. The genetic correlation MY v. muscularity was unfavourable (−0.328 on average), whereas null correlations were found in MY v. PT, apart from fat v. dressing percentage (−0.151). Somatic cell score showed low unfavourable correlations with protein (0.111) and UV (0.092), and favourable correlations with UC (−0.193). Response to selection in different scenarios indicated a good balanced gain for milk and beef when standardized economic weights of 0.66 and 0.34 are given to the two attitudes, and SCS genetic gain is restricted. Current genetic trends (MY and PT increasing, but muscularity lessening) reflect a stronger selection for milk, suggesting a slight progressive change towards a milk conformation. Aiming to preserve the dual-purpose characteristics of a breed, proper breeding policies taking into account the genetic relationships among traits and including functional traits should be applied in local dual-purpose populations.

Keywords

selection indexgenetic improvementheritabilitySEUROPnative breed
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 906 - 914
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Aass, L 1996. Variation in carcass and meat quality traits and their relations to growth in dual purpose cattle. Livestock Production Science 46, 1–12.Google Scholar
Ali, A and Shook, G 1978. Optimum transformation for somatic-cell concentration (SCC) in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 78–79.Google Scholar
Bonfatti, V, Albera, A and Carnier, P 2013. Genetic associations between daily BW gain and live fleshiness of station-tested young bulls and carcass and meat quality traits of commercial intact males in Piemontese cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2057–2066.Google Scholar
Careau, V, Wolak, ME, Carter, PA and Garland, T 2013. Limits to behavioural evolution: the quantitative genetics of a complex trait under directional selection. Evolution 67, 3102–3119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croué, I, Fouilloux, MN, Saintilan, R and Ducrocq, V 2017. Carcass traits of young bulls in dual-purpose cattle: genetic parameters and genetic correlations with veal calf, type and production traits. Animal 11, 929–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Haas, Y, Janss, LLG and Kadarmideen, HN 2007. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for conformation and yield traits in three Swiss dairy cattle breeds. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 12–19.Google Scholar
FAO 2017. DAD-IS, Domestic Animal Diversity Information System. FAO, Rome. Retrieved on 9 January 2017 from http://dad.fao.org/.Google Scholar
Frigo, E, Samorè, AB, Vicario, D, Bagnato, A and Pedron, O 2013. Heritabilities and genetic correlations of body condition score and muscularity with productive traits and their trend functions in Italian Simmental cattle. Italian Journal of Animal Science 12, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuerst-Waltl, B, Fuerst, C, Obritzhauser, W and Egger-Danner, C 2016. Sustainable breeding objectives and possible selection response: Finding the balance between economics and breeders’ preferences. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 9796–9809.Google Scholar
Gandini, GC and Villa, E 2003. Analysis of the cultural value of local livestock breeds: a methodology. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 120, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanford, KJ, Van Vleck, LD and Snowder, GD 2002. Estimates of genetic parameters and genetic change for reproduction, weight, and wool characteristics of Columbia sheep. Journal of Animal Science 80, 3086–3098.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, J and Schaeffer, LR 2012. Test‐day somatic cell score, fat‐to‐protein ratio and milk yield as indicator traits for sub‐clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 11–19.Google Scholar
Jensen, J, Mao, IL, Andersen, BB and Madsen, P 1991. Genetic parameters of growth, feed intake, feed conversion and carcass composition of dual-purpose bulls in performance testing. Journal of animal science 69, 931–939.Google Scholar
Kause, A, Mikkola, L, Strandén, I and Sirkko, K 2015. Genetic parameters for carcass weight, conformation and fat in five beef cattle breeds. Animal 9, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempthorne, O and Nordskog, AW 1959. Restricted selection indices. Biometrics 15, 10–19.Google Scholar
Koeck, A, Egger-Danner, C, Fuerst, C, Obritzhauser, W and Fuerst-Waltl, B 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual-purpose cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2185–2194.Google Scholar
Krupová, Z, Krupa, E, Michaličková, M, Wolfová, M and Kasarda, R 2016. Economic values for health and feed efficiency traits of dual-purpose cattle in marginal areas. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 644–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M and Walsh, B 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Mantovani, R, Gallo, L, Carnier, P, Cassandro, M and Bittante, G 1997. The use of a juvenile selection scheme for genetic improvement of small populations: the example of Rendena breed. Proceedings of the 48th EAAP Annual Meeting, 25–28 August 1997, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Mazza, S, Guzzo, N, Sartori, C, Berry, DP and Mantovani, R 2014. Genetic parameters for linear type traits in the Rendena dual‐purpose breed. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 131, 27–35.Google Scholar
Mazza, S, Guzzo, N, Sartori, C and Mantovani, R 2016a. Factor analysis for genetic evaluation of linear type traits in dual-purpose autochthonous breeds. Animal 10, 372–380.Google Scholar
Mazza, S, Guzzo, N, Sartori, C and Mantovani, R 2016b. Genetic correlations between type and test-day milk yield in small dual-purpose cattle populations: The Aosta Red Pied breed as a case study. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8127–8136.Google Scholar
Misztal, I 2008. Reliable computing in estimation of variance components. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 125, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Negussie, E, Strandén, I and Mäntysaari, EA 2008. Genetic association of clinical mastitis with test-day somatic cell score and milk yield during first lactation of Finnish Ayrshire cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1189–1197.Google Scholar
Pirchner, F 1986. Evaluation of industry breeding programs for dairy cattle milk and meat production. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Paper no. 46, 16–22 July, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.Google Scholar
Rønning, B, Jensen, H, Moe, B and Bech, C 2007. Basal metabolic rate: heritability and genetic correlations with morphological traits in the zebra finch. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20, 1815–1822.Google Scholar
Russell, DW 2002. In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 1629–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samoré, AB, Rizzi, R, Rossoni, A and Bagnato, A 2010. Genetic parameters for functional longevity, type traits, SCS, milk flow and production in the Italian Brown Swiss. Italian Journal of Animal Science 9, 145–152.Google Scholar
Sartori, C, Mazza, S, Guzzo, N and Mantovani, R 2015. Evolution of increased competitiveness in cows trades off with reduced milk yield, fertility and more masculine morphology. Evolution 69, 2235–2245.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2013. Base SAS® 9.4 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures, 2nd edition. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sbarra, F, Mantovani, R and Bittante, G 2010. Heritability of performance test traits in Chianina, Marchigiana and Romagnola breeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 107–109.Google Scholar
Short, TH and Lawlor, TJ 1992. Genetic parameters of conformation traits, milk yield, and herd life in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1987–1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sölkner, J, Miesenberger, J, Willam, A, Fürst, C and Baumung, R 2000. Total merit indices in dual purpose cattle. Archiv fur Tierzucht 43, 597–608.Google Scholar
Swalve, HH 1995. Genetic relationship between dairy lactation persistency and yield. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 112, 303–311.Google Scholar