Experimental selection for calving ease and postnatal growth in seven cattle populations. II. Phenotypic differences

Journal of Animal Science

Volumn 86, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 2103-2114

  Bennett, G L ^a   Thallman, R M ^a   Snelling, W M ^a   Kuehn, L A ^a  

^a U S MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Calving difficulty; Cattle; Gestation length; Growth; Pelvic area; Selection response

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; BREEDING; CATTLE; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; ANIMALS; BIRTH WEIGHT; BREEDING; CATTLE; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MALE; PHENOTYPE; PREGNANCY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; SELECTION (GENETICS);

BOS; HUMAN HERPESVIRUS 4;

EID: 52649110597     PISSN: 00218812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2527/jas.2007-0768     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Arnold, J. W., J. K. Bertrand, L. L. Benyshek, J. W. Comerford, and T. E. Kiser. 1990. Selection for low birth weight and high yearling weight in Angus beef cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 25:31-41.
2. Bellows, R. A., R. E. Short, D. C. Anderson, B. W. Knapp, and O. F. Pahnish. 1971. Cause and effect relationships associated with calving difficulty and calf birth weight. J. Anim. Sci. 33:407-415.
3. Bennett, G. L. 2008. Experimental selection for calving ease and postnatal growth in seven cattle populations. I. Changes in estimated breeding values. J. Anim. Sci. 86:2093-2102.
4. Bennett, G. L., and K. E. Gregory. 2001a. 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.
5. Bennett, G. L., and K. E. Gregory. 2001b. Genetic (co)variances for calving difficulty score in composite and parental populations of beef cattle: II. Reproductive, skeletal, and carcass traits. J. Anim. Sci. 79:52-59.
6. Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, C. P. Van Tassell, and S. D. Kachman. 1995. A manual for use of MTDFREML: A set of programs to obtain estimates of variances and covariances [Draft]. ARS, USDA, Washington, DC.
7. Burns, W. C., M. Koger, W. T. Butts, O. F. Pahnish, and R. L. Blackwell. 1979. Genotype by environment interaction in Hereford cattle: II. Birth and weaning traits. J. Anim. Sci. 49:403-409.
8. Colburn, D. J., G. H. Deutscher, M. K. Nielsen, and D. C. Adams. 1997. Effects of sire, dam traits, calf traits, and environment on dystocia and subsequent reproduction of two-year-old heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1452-1460.
9. Cundiff, L. V., R. M. Thallman, L. D. Van Vleck, G. L. Bennett, and C. A. Morris. 2007. Cattle breed evaluation at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center and implications for commercial beef farmers. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 67:9-17.
10. Dickerson, G. E., N. Künzi, L. V. Cundiff, R. M. Koch, V. H. Arthaud, and K. E. Gregory. 1974. Selection criteria for efficient beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 39:659-673.
11. Eriksson, S., A. Näsholm, K. Johansson, and J. Philipsson. 2004. Genetic parameters for calving difficulty, stillbirth, and birth weight for Hereford and Charolais at first and later parities. J. Anim. Sci. 82:375-383.
12. Ferrell, C. L. 1991. Maternal and fetal influences on uterine and conceptus development in the cow: II. Blood flow and nutrient flux. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1954-1965.
13. Ferrell, C. L., W. N. Garrett, and N. Hinman. 1976. Growth, development and composition of the udder and gravid uterus of beef heifers during pregnancy. J. Anim. Sci. 42:1477-1489.
14. Jamrozik, J., J. Fatehi, G. J. Kistemaker, and L. R. Schaeffer. 2005. Estimates of genetic parameters for Canadian Holstein female reproduction traits. J. Dairy Sci. 88:2199-2208.
15. Laster, D. B., H. A. Glimp, L. V. Cundiff, and K. E. Gregory. 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and the effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 36:695-705.
16. MacNeil, M. D. 2003. Genetic evaluation of an index of birth weight and yearling weight to improve efficiency of beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 81:2425-2433.
17. MacNeil, M. D., R. E. Short, and W. M. Snelling. 1999. Progeny testing sires selected by independent culling levels for below average birth weight and high yearling weight or by mass selection for high yearling weight. J. Anim. Sci. 77:2345-2351.
18. MacNeil, M. D., J. J. Urick, and W. M. Snelling. 1998. Comparison of selection by independent culling levels for below-average birth weight and high yearling weight with mass selection for high yearling weight in Line 1 Hereford cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 76:458-467.
19. Meijering, A., and A. Postma. 1985. Responses to sire selection for dystocia. Livest. Prod. Sci. 13:251-266.
20. Quaas, R. L., Y. Zhao, and E. J. Pollak. 1988. Describing interactions in dystocia scores with a threshold model. J. Anim. Sci. 66:396-399.