Effects of inbreeding in the dam on dystocia and stillbirths in US Holsteins

53Citations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Dystocia scores were recorded by producers on 120,434 Holsteins (218,213 records) from 1985 through 1996; dystocia scores 3 to 5 were coded as difficult births. Stillbirths were recorded for deaths within the first 48 h after birth. Data were restricted to registered cows for pedigree completeness, and inbreeding coefficients were calculated using 5-generation pedigrees. Computational restrictions required that subsets of the data be created by choosing herds at random but using all records from selected herds. Effects of inbreeding in the dam were estimated in a sire-maternal grandsire (of the calf) threshold model using Gibbs sampling. The model included fixed effects of calf sex and inbreeding of the dam and random effects of herd-year-season of birth, additive genetic, and residual effects. First, second, and third parities were analyzed separately. Solutions for sex of calf and inbreeding from different parities were converted to expected change in probability of dystocia or stillbirth per 1% increase in inbreeding. Inbreeding effects were largest for first-parity cows giving birth to male calves at a 0.42% increase in probability of dystocia/1% increase in inbreeding. Effects of inbreeding for first-parity dams giving birth to female calves were smaller, 0.30%/1% increase in inbreeding. Incidence of stillbirths increased 0.25 and 0.20% for male and female calves/1% increase in inbreeding for first parity births. Effects of inbreeding on dystocia and stillbirths declined with parity. Effects of inbreeding were small, especially in later parities, but were consistently unfavorable. © American Dairy Science Association, 2006.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Adamec, V., Cassell, B. G., Smith, E. P., & Pearson, R. E. (2006). Effects of inbreeding in the dam on dystocia and stillbirths in US Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science, 89(1), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72095-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free