Sire evaluation models for estimating breeding values of Mehsana buffaloes

R N SATHWARA; J P GUPTA; J D CHAUDHARI; B M PRAJAPATI; A K SRIVASTAVA; H D CHAUHAN; P A PATEL

doi:10.56093/ijans.v89i4.89148

Authors

R N SATHWARA MVSc Scholar, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
J P GUPTA Assistant Professor, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
J D CHAUDHARI Assistant Professor, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
B M PRAJAPATI Veterinary Officer, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
A K SRIVASTAVA Assistant Professor, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
H D CHAUHAN Associate Professor, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
P A PATEL Manager, TI Dudhsagar Research and Development Association, Dudhsagar Dairy, Mehsana

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v89i4.89148

Keywords:

Animal model, Bivariate, Breeding value, Sire model, Univariate

Abstract

First lactation data on 7,782 Mehsana buffaloes sired by 184 sires maintained at Dudhsagar Research and Development Association, Dudhsagar Dairy, Mehsana over a period of 24 years (1989â€“2012) were used to estimate least-squares means (LSM) and breeding value of the first lactation fat yield (FLFY) and average fat percentage (AFP) using univariate and bivariate models with the help of WOMBAT software. The effectiveness of different sire evaluation models using FLFY and AFP were compared on the basis of error variance, coefficient of determination (CV%), R2-value, AIC, BIC and Spearmanâ€™s rank correlation. The average estimate of FLFY and AFP was 135.04Â±0.57 kg and 7.11Â±0.11% in Mehsana buffaloes. These estimates were significantly affected by period and season of calving, and age at first calving group. The average expected breeding value of Mehsana buffalo bulls for FLFY and AFP were 133.24 kg and 7.14% using sire model (BLUP-SM), 135.71 kg and 7.22% using univariate animal model (BLUP-U-AM) and 133.23 kg and 7.14% from bivariate animal model (BLUP-B-AM), respectively for FLFY and AFP. The spearmanâ€™s rank correlation indicated similarity of rankings by BLUP-U-AM and BLUPB- AM. Animal model had a wider range of breeding values indicating the greater differentiating ability of the model. Based on error variance, AIC, BIC, R2 and CV; animal model was found to be superior in comparison to sire model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6): 716–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

Annual Progress Report. 2015. Research Sub-Committee on Animal Production. 11th Meeting at College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural Univeresity, Sardarkrushinagar.

Chitra A, Jain A, Verma R K, Tripathy S S, Ratwan P and Kumar M. 2017. Evaluation of Murrah sires based on milk production and milk constituent traits. 13th National Conference of Indian Society of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Challenges in Quantitative Genetics for Improvement of Indigenous Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR), 19–20 January, pp 35.

DAHD. 2017. Annual Report. Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, pp 5–14.

Dash S K. 2014. ‘Genetic evaluation of Karan Fries cattle for fertility and production traits’. MSc Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal.

Dash S K, Gupta A K, Singh A, Chakravarty A K, Madhusoodanan M, Valsalan J, Shivhare P R and Hussain A. 2014. Evaluation of efficiency of sire model and animal model in Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle considering first lactation production and fertility traits. Veterinary World 7(11): 933–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.933-937

Dash S K, Gupta A K, Singh A, Shivhare P R, Panmei A and Singh M. 2016. Comparative assessment of sire evaluation by univariate and bivariate animal model for estimation of breeding values of first lactation traits in HF cross cattle. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 86(2): 177–79.

El-Bramony M M. 2017. Genetic evaluation of the Egyptian buffalo population for production traits. International Journal of Genetics 7(2): 38–45.

Harvey W R. 1990. User’s Guide for LSMLWM and MIXMDL C-2 version. Mixed Model Least-Squares and Maximum Likelihood Computer Programme. Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Isik M and Gul M. 2016. Economic and social structures of water buffalo farming in Mus province of Turkey. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 45(7): 400–08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902016000700007

Kramer C R. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated means. Biometrics 13: 13–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3001898

Kumar M, Vohra V, Ratwan P, Valsalan J, Patil C S and Chakravarty A K. 2016. Estimates of genetic parameters for fat yield in Murrah buffaloes. Veterinary World 9(3): 295–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.295-298

Meyer K. 2007. WOMBAT-A tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Journal of Zhejiang University-Science Biomedicine and Biotechnology 8(11): 815–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2007.B0815

Mukherjee S. 2005. ‘Genetic evaluation of Frieswal Cattle’. PhD Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India.

NDDB. 2017. Per capita availability of Milk by States. National Dairy Development Board. Available at http://nddb.coop/information/stats/milkprodindia. Accessed on 10th April, 2018.

Prajapati B M, Gupta J P, Pandey D P, Chaudhari J D, Parmar G A, Patel P A, Prajapati M N and Sathwara R N. 2017. Non genetic factors affecting age at first calving in Mehsana buffaloes. Life Sciences Leaflets 87: 8–15.

Sahoo S K, Singh A, Ambhore G S, Dash S K and Kumar V. 2018. Modeling lactation curve for genetic evaluation of Murrah buffaloes. National Symposium on Sustainable Management of Livestock and Poultry Diversity for Enhancing the farmer’s income, 8–10 February, pp 257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.B-3432

Schwarz G E. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6(2): 461–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136

Spearman C. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two rings. American Journal of Psychology 15(1): 72–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159

Verma M K, Sachdeva G K, Yadav A K, Gautam S, Alim M and Kumar S. 2017. Effect of genetic and non-genetic factors on milk yield and milk constituents in Murrah buffalo. Indian Journal of Animal Research 51(2): 387–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.9297

Yadav S P, Sikka P, Kumar D, Sarkar S, PandeyA K, Yadav P S and Sethi R K. 2013. Variation in milk constituents during different parity and seasons in Murrah buffaloes. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 83(7): 747–51.

Zutere R. 2008. Estimates of breeding values for dairy cattle using test-day milk yields. Latvian Journal of Agronomy 10: 293–99.