Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T03:17:33.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Scandinavian experience of including reproductive traits in Breeding Programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

B. Lindhdé  and
J. Philipsson
B. Lindhdé
Affiliation:
Svensk Avel, S-532 94 Skara, Sweden
J. Philipsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, S-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

Female fertility affects the culling rate as well as the direct reproduction costs and influences the calving interval and the calving season. It is therefore obvious that female fertility should be included in a Total Merit Index (TMI), which directs the genetic changes in dairy cattle selection. When the first TMI was introduced in Sweden in 1975 female fertility was included. A basic prerequisite for inclusion of fertility in the Scandinavian breeding programme was that milk recording, pedigree and AI-data were integrated in the same databases.

The paper deals exclusively with the additive genetic effects on female fertility. The heritabilities of the measures used for female fertility are low, usually below 0.05. Despite this, the additive genetic variance is high as demonstrated by large differences between progeny groups. Thus, selection must be based on progeny testing of bulls on daughter groups of 100-150 daughters or more, which is the case in all the Scandinavian countries. Different procedures for calculation of daughter fertility indices are practised in Scandinavia.

Research shows the importance of including measures of both the time interval from calving to insemination and a direct fertility trait such as number of inseminations or non-return rate (NR). It has also been shown that reproductive measures of different stages of life, i.e. heifer and lactating cow periods, must be considered. The genetic correlations between daughter fertility and different yield measures are negative (-0.2 to -0.4). Selection for yield without consideration of daughter fertility results in a deterioration of daughter fertility. A comparison of the flat genetic and phenotypic trends for daughter fertility along with strongly increased productivity in the SRB-breed, where Scandinavian bulls have dominated as sires of sons, and the negative trends in the SLB-breed where almost all sires of sons during a decade and a half have been imported from North America, illustrates the consequences of selection with and without consideration of daughter fertility in the sire-son path.

Daughter fertility will probably remain an important trait in the future, not only in countries with seasonal milk production connected to the pasture period. As dairy cattle breeding is quite international, calculation of international breeding values for daughter fertility in the same way as is practised by INTERBULL for production and conformation seems to be an important challenge for the future.

Type
Invited Papers
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 26 , Issue 1: Fertility in the High Producing Dairy Cow , January 2001 , pp. 251 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

A.-Ranberg, I.M., Steine, T. and Klemetsdal, G. 1998. Breeding for female fertility - current status and future possibilities in Norway. Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in Cattle; Fertility and Reproduction Grub, Germany November, 1997. INTERBULL, Bulletin No. 18, 87–90.Google Scholar
Boichard, D., Barbat, A. and Briend, M. 1998. Genetic evaluation for fertility in French dairy cattle. Proceedings International Workshop on Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in Cattle; Fertility and Reproduction Grub, Germany November, 1997. INTERBULL Bulletin No. 18, 99–101.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. G. 1998. Future market and consumer-orientated breeding goals. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Animal Sci. Suppl: 28, 45–53.Google Scholar
Eriksson, J.-Å. 1997. Dotterfruktsamhetsavelsvärdets effekt på antal inseminationer per serie, brunststyrka och antal dagar kalvning första insemination. Mimeo. SHS 2pp..Google Scholar
Eriksson, J.-Å. 1999. Nytt avelsmål. Mimeo. Svensk Mjölk FoU. 14pp.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J., van der Lugt, A.W., van der Werf, J.H.J. & Ouweltjes, W. 1994. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for milk production and fertility traits in upgraded dairy cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 40, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janson, L. 1980a. Studies on fertility traits in Swedish dairy cattle. I. Effects of non-genetic factors. Acta Agric Scand 30, 109–124.Google Scholar
Janson, L. 1980b. Studies on fertility traits in Swedish dairy cattle. II. Genetic parameters. Acta Agric Scand. 30, 427–436.Google Scholar
Janson, L. 1981. Studies on fertility traits in Swedish dairy cattle. III Evaluation of build for daughter fertility. Acta Agric Scand. 31, 299–312.Google Scholar
Janson, L. & Andreasson, B. 1981. Studies on fertility traits in Swedish dairy cattle, IV. Genetic and phenotypic correlation between milk yield and fertility. Acta Agric. Scand. 31, 313–322.Google Scholar
Koenen, E., Berglund, B., Philipsson, J. and Groen, A. 1994. Genetic parameters of fertility disorders and mastitis in the Swedish friesian breed. Acta Agric.Scand Section A. Animal Science. 44, 202–207.Google Scholar
Künzi, N. 1983. Die mögliche Nutzung des Embryotransfers in Rinderzuchtprogrammen. Schweizer. Lantw. Monatsheft. 61, 299–309.Google Scholar
Lindhé, B. 1972. Data collection and evaluation in artificial insemination. VIIth International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, Munich, 1972. I. 1972, 219–227.Google Scholar
Lindhé, B. and Philipsson, J. Genetic correlations between production with disease resistance and fertility in dairy cattle and consequences for total merit selection. Acta Agric. Scand, Sect. A, Animal Science. 48, 216–221.Google Scholar
Lindhé, B. 1999. Genetic trends 1985 – 1998 for the two Swedish dairy cattle breeds SRB and SLB. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Dept. of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 29pp In press..Google Scholar
Maijala, K. 1964. Fertility as a breeding problem in artificially bred populations of cattle. I. Registration and heritability. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 2, suppl. 1, 94pp.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J. 1999. Samband mellan fruktsamhet och produktion hos förstakalvande SLB-kor. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Mimeo, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, P.A., Frick, A. and Lindhé, B. 1991. Relationship of fertility to milk yield in Swedish cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 74, 264–268.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J. 1981. Genetic aspects of female fertility in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science, 8: 307–319.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J., Banos, G. and Arnason, T. 1994. Present and future uses of selection index methodology in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 77: 3252–3261.Google Scholar
Pösö, J. and Mäntysaari, E.A. 1996. Genetic relationships between reproductive disorders, operational days open and milk yield. Livest.Prod.Sci. 46, 41–48.Google Scholar
Roth, A., Strandberg, E., Berglund, B. Emanuelson, U. and Philipsson, J. 1998. Genetic correlations among female fertility traits and milk production in different parities in Swedish dairy cattle. Paper presented at BSAS/GIFT/BCVA international symposium on metabolic stress in dairy cows, Edinburgh, October 28-30 1998. Google Scholar
Steine, T. (1995). Personal communication. Google Scholar
Thompson, J. R. 1998. World wide Holstein breeding. Proceedings Intermediate Report Workshop EU Concerted Action Genetic Improvement of Functional Traits in Cattle; (GIFT) Warsaw, Poland August 23rd, 1998. INTERBULL Bulletin No. 19, 29–35.Google Scholar
Årsstatistik, Avl 1997-98. Sektion for Avlssystemer. Landbrugets Rådgivningscenter. Landsudvalget for Kvæg. Rapport Nr. 77.421 pp.Google Scholar