Evaluation models and genetic parameters for calving difficulty in beef cattle

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 81, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 933-938

  Phocas, F ^a   Laloe D ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Contemporary Comparisons; Dystocia; Linear Models; Threshold Models

Indexed keywords

BOS TAURUS;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRTH; BREEDING; CATTLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PREGNANCY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; BREEDING; CATTLE; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; LINEAR MODELS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PARTURITION; PHENOTYPE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY;

EID: 0043130218     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/2003.814933x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bennett, G. L., and K. E. Gregory. 2001. Genetic (co)variances for calving difficulty score in composite and parental populations of beef cattle: I. Calving difficulty score, birth weight, weaning weight, and postweaning gain. J. Anim. Sci. 79:45-51.
2. Carnier, P., A. Albera, R. Dal Zotto, A. F. Groen, M. Bona, and G. Bittante. 2000. Genetic parameters for direct and maternal calving ability over parities in Piedmontese cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2532-2539.
3. Dong, M. C., R. L. Quaas, and E. J. Pollak. 1991. Estimation of genetic parameters of calving ease and birth weight by a threshold model. J. Anim. Sci. 69(Suppl 1):204. (Abstr.)
4. Ducrocq, V. 2000. Calving ease evaluation of French dairy bulls with a heteroskedastic threshold model with direct and maternal effects. Proc. Interbull Open Mtg., Bled, Slovenia 25:123-130.
5. Gianola, D., and J. L. Foulley. 1983. Sire evaluation for ordered categorical data with a threshold model. Genet. Sel. Evol. 15:201-224.
6. Gilmour, A. R., B. R. Cullis, and S. J. Welham. 2000. ASREML Reference Manual. NSW Agriculture, Orange, Australia.
7. Gregory, K. E., L. V. Cundiff, and R. M. Koch. 1995. Genetic and phenotypic (co)variances for production traits of female populations of purebred and composite beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2235-2242.
8. Harville, D. A., and R. W. Mee. 1984. A mixed-model procedure for analysed ordered categorical data. Biometrics 40:393-408.
9. Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:343-360.
10. Hoeschele I., and B. Tier. 1995. Estimation of variance components of threshold characters by marginal poseterior modes and means via Gibbs sampling. Genet. Sel. Evol. 27:519-540.
11. Misztal, I., D. Gianola, and J. L. Foulley. 1989. Computing aspects of a nonlinear sire evaluation for categorical data. J. Dairy Sci. 72:1557-1568.
12. Moreno, C., D. Sorensen, L. A. Garcia-Cortés, L. Varona, and J. Altarriba. 1997. On biased inferences about variance components in the binary threshold model. Genet. Sel. Evol. 29:145-160.
13. Ramirez-Valverde, R., I. Misztal, and J. K. Bertrand. 2001. Comparison of threshold vs linear and animal vs sire models for predicting direct and maternal genetic effects on calving difficulty in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 79:333-338.
14. Varona, L., I. Misztal, and J. K. Bertrand. 1999. Threshold-linear versus linear-linear analysis of birth weight and calving ease using an animal model: I. variance component estimation. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1994-2002.
15. Visscher, P. M., and M. E. Goddard. 1993. Fixed and random contemporary groups. J. Dairy Sci. 76:1444-1454.