Reaction norms used to quantify the responses of New Zealand dairy cattle of mixed breeds to nutritional environment

New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 371-381

  Bryant, J R ^a,c   Lopez Villalobos N ^a   Pryce, J E ^b   Holmes, C W ^a   Johnson, D L ^b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION   (New Zealand)

^c AGRESEARCH GRASSLANDS   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Dairy cattle; Environmental sensitivity; Pasture based; Reaction norm

Indexed keywords

CATTLE; DAIRY FARMING; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; FEEDING ECOLOGY; GENERALIST; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HETEROGENEITY; NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY; PASTURE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REACTION NORM; SPECIALIST;

AUSTRALASIA; NEW ZEALAND;

BOS TAURUS; FRIESIA;

EID: 33846386778     PISSN: 00288233     EISSN: 11758775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00288233.2006.9513727     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Arnold, JW, Bertrand, JK, and Benyshek, LL. 1992. Animal model for genetic evaluation of multibreed data. Journal of Animal Science, 70:3322–3332.
2. Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Kolver, ES, and Delahoy, JE. 2003. Invited review:production and digestion of supplemented dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science, 86:1–42.
3. Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD, Rath, M, and Veerkamp, RF. 2003. Estimation of genotype × environment interactions, in a grass-based system, for milk yield, body condition score, and body weight using random regression models. Livestock Production Science, 83:191–203.
4. Bryant, JR, López-Villalobos, N, Holmes, CW, and Pryce, JE. 2005. Simulation modelling of dairy cattle performance based on knowledge of genotype, environment and genotype by environment interactions:current status. Agricultural Systems, 86:121–143.
5. Bryant, JR, López-Villalobos, N, Pryce, JE, Holmes, CW, Johnson, DL, and Garrick, DJ. in press. Environmental sensitivity in New Zealand dairy cattle of mixed breeds. Journal of Dairy Science
6. Burnham, KP, and Anderson, DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference:a practical information-theoretic approach, New York:Springer-Verlag.
7. Calus, MPL, and Veerkamp, RF. 2003. Estimation of environmental sensitivity of genetic merit for milk production traits using a random regression model. Journal of Dairy Science, 86:3756–3764.
8. Calus, MPL, Windig, JJ, and Veerkamp, RF. 2005. Associations among descriptors of herd management and phe-notypic and genetic levels of health and fertility. Journal of Dairy Science, 88:2178–2189.
9. David, JR, Gibert, P, Gravot, E, Petavy, G, Morin, J-P, Karan, D, and Moreteau, B. 1997. Phenotypic plasticity and developmental temperature in Drosophila:analysis and significance of reaction norms of morphometrical traits. Journal of Thermal Biology, 22:441–451.
10. de Jong, G, and Bijma, P. 2002. Selection and phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary biology and animal breeding. Livestock Production Science, 78:195–214.
11. Flatt, T. 2005. The evolutionary genetics of canalization. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 80:287–316.
12. Friggens, NC, Ingvartsen, KL, and Emmans, GC. 2004. Prediction of body lipid change in pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Dairy Science, 87:988–1000.
13. Gabriel, W, and Lynch, M. 1992. The selective advantage of reaction norms for environmental tolerance. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 5:41–59.
14. Harris, BL, and Kolver, ES. 2001. Review of Holsteinization on intensive pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science, 84(E. Supplement):E56–E61.
15. Hayes, BJ, Carrick, M, Bowman, P, and Goddard, ME. 2003. Genotype × environment interaction for milk production of daughters of Australian dairy sires from test-day records. Journal of Dairy Science, 86:3736–3744.
16. Hillesheim, E, and Stearns, SC. 1991. The responses of Drosophila melanogaster to artificial selection on body weight and its phenotypic plasticity in two larval food environments. Evolution, 45:1909–1923.
17. Horan, B, Mee, JF, Rath, M, O'Connor, P, and Dillon, P. 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feeding system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science, 79:453–468.
18. Horan, B, Dillon, P, Berry, DP, O'Connor, P, and Rath, M. 2005. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian, feeding system and parity on lactation curves characteristics of spring-calving dairy cows. Livestock Production Science, 95:231–241.
19. Jaffrezic, F, and Pletcher, SD. 2000. Statistical models for estimating the genetic basis of repeated measures and other function-valued traits. Genetics, 156:913–922.
20. Johnson, DL. 1996. Estimation of lactation yield from repeated measures of test day yields. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 56:16–18.
21. Johnson, DL, and Thompson, R. 1995. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of variance components for univariate animal models using sparse matrix techniques and average information. Journal of Dairy Science, 78:449–456.
22. Kassen, R. 2002. The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 15:173–190.
23. Kearney, JF, Schutz, MM, Boettcher, PJ, and Weigel, KA. 2004. Genotype × environment interaction for grazing versus confinement. I. Production traits. Journal of Dairy Science, 87:501–509.
24. Kolmodin, R. 2003. Reaction norms for the study of genotype by environment interaction in animal breeding, Uppsala, Sweden:Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Unpublished PhD thesis
25. Kolmodin, R, Strandberg, E, Madsen, P, Jensen, J, and Jorjani, H. 2002. Genotype by environment interaction in Nordic dairy cattle studied using reaction norms. ActaAgriculturae Scandinavica, SectionA-Ani-mal Science, 52:11–24.
26. Kolmodin, R, Strandberg, E, Jorjani, H, and Danell, B. 2003. Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction:response in environmental sensitivity. Animal Science, 76:375–385.
27. Kolver, ES, Roche, JR, De Veth, MJ, Thorne, PL, and Napper, AR. 2002. Total mixed rations versus pasture diets:evidence for a genotype × diet interaction in dairy cow performance. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 62:246–251.
28. Lancelot, R, Lesnoff, M, and McDermott, JJ. 2002. Use of Akaike information criteria for model selection and inference:an application to assess prevention of gastrointestinal parasitism and respiratory mortality of Guinean goats in Kolda, Senegal. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 55:217–240.
29. Livestock Improvement. 2005. Dairy statistics 2004/05, Hamilton, New Zealand:Livestock Improvement Corporation.
30. Linnane, M, Horan, B, Connolly, J, O'Connor, P, Buckley, F, and Dillon, P. 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian and feeding system on grazing behaviour, herbage intake and productivity in the first lactation. Animal Science, 78:169–178.
31. Meadows, G. 1996. The New Zealand guide to cattle breeds, Auckland, New Zealand:Reed Books.
32. Mulder, HA, Veerkamp, RF, Ducro, BJ, van Arendonk, JAM, and Bijma, P. 2005. Optimization of dairy cattle breeding programs for different environments with genotype by environment interactions. Journal of Dairy Science, 89:1740–1752.
33. Pigliucci, M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity:where are we going now?. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20:481–486.
34. Pigliucci, M, and Byrd, N. 1998. Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity to nutrient stress in Arabidopsis:drift, constraints or selection?. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 64:17–40.
35. Price, TD, Qvarnstrom, A, and Irwin, DE. 2003. The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B. Biological Sciences, 270:1433–1440.
36. Pryce, JE, Coffey, MP, and Simm, G. 2001. The relationship between body condition score and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science, 84:1508–1515.
37. Pryce, JE, Royal, MD, Garnsworthy, PC, and Mao, IL. 2004. Fertility in the high-producing dairy cow. Livestock Production Science, 86:125–135.
38. SAS. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 8, Cary, NC:SAS Institute.
39. Schaeffer, LR. 1994. Multiple-country comparison of dairy sires. Journal of Dairy Science, 77:2671–2678.
40. Scheiner, SM. 1993. Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annual Review of Ecology and System-atics, 24:35–68.
41. Scheiner, SM. 1998. The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. VII. Evolution in a spatially-structured environment. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 11:303–320.
42. Simms, EL. 2000. Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction. Evolutionary Ecology, 14:563–570.
43. van der Waaij, EH. 2004. A resource allocation model describing consequences of artificial selection under metabolic stress. Journal of Animal Science, 82:973–981.
44. van Tienderen, PH. 1997. Generalists, specialists, and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in sympatric populations of distinct species. Evolution, 51:1372–1380.
45. Via, S, Gomulkiewicz, R, De Jong, G, Scheiner, SM, Schli-chting, CD, and Van Tienderen, PH. 1995. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity:consensus and controversy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10:212–217.
46. Waddington, CH. 1961. Genetic assimilation. Advances in Genetics, 10:257–293.
47. Weigel, KA, and Powell, RL. 2000. Retrospective analysis of the accuracy of conversion equations and multiple-trait, across-country evaluations of Holstein bulls used internationally. Journal of Dairy Science, 83:1081–1088.
48. Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16:97–159.
49. Zwald, NR, Weigel, KA, Fikse, WF, and Rekaya, R. 2003. Application of a multiple-trait herd cluster model for genetic evaluation of dairy sires from seventeen countries. Journal of Dairy Science, 86:376–382.