Evans, R.D.

Kearney, F.

Mulder, H.A.

Pabiou, T.

English

Name not available

Multi-breed genetic evaluation for docility in Irisch Suckler Beef Cattle

NARCIS 

Wageningen Yield 

 127
Multi-Breed Genetic Evaluation for Docility in 
Irish Suckler Beef Cattle 
 
R.D. Evans1, T. Pabiou1, F. Kearney1 and H.A. Mulder2 
1 Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland 
2Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200, AB 
Lelystad, The Netherlands 
 
 
Introduction 
 
Poor temperament in beef cattle has been 
associated with reduced performance, health, 
and carcass quality in beef cattle (Beckman et 
al., 2007a). Handling is more labour intensive 
and time consuming and therefore causes 
increased productions costs (Grandin, 1989). 
Aggressive cattle jeopardize stockperson 
safety and are more likely to become injured 
during handling (Grandin, 1989). The response 
to handling can vary from docile, easy to 
handle to aggressive with docile being the 
preferred behavioural response for farming 
conditions (Gauly et al., 2001). The 
combination of these factors make docility an 
economically relevant trait (Golden et al., 
2000) that should be strongly considered by 
beef producers when breeding or purchasing 
cattle. Differences in temperament are quite 
noticeable and moderately heritable (Le 
Neindre et al., 1995) so selection pressure can 
be exerted in a breeding programme to alter or 
improve temperament (Morris et al., 1994).  
Within breed genetic evaluations for docility 
have been implemented by a various beef 
evaluation centres including the North 
American Limousine Federation (Limousine), 
BREEDPLAN in Australia, (Limousine), 
ICBF in Ireland (Limousine). 
 
The aim of this paper is to outline the 
recent development of an across breed 
evaluation of docility for Irish suckler beef 
cattle. 
  
 
Materials and Methods 
 
Data for the study was obtained from the Irish 
Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) database 
and consisted of two different measures of 
docility recording. 
 
ICBF trained linear scorers have recorded 
docility (DOCLIN) since 2002. This service 
was historically available for pedigree cattle 
but in recent years the service was expanded to 
include crossbred animals also. Docility is 
recorded at the same time as other linear, 
muscular and skeletal scores. Scores given 
range from 1 (aggressive) to 10 (docile). 
Currently there is a within breed docility index 
published on Limousine pedigree cattle based 
on docility recorded during linear scoring. A 
dataset containing 122,397 animals scored for 
DOCLIN was obtained from the ICBF 
database. The main breeds represented were 
Limousine, Charolais, Simmental, Hereford 
with smaller numbers of other beef breeds. The 
percentages of DOCLIN scores recorded was 
as follows: 6%, 16%, 35%, 32%, 9% and 3% 
for scores of 5 or less, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. 16% of 
DOCLIN scores were on crossbred animals. 
 
In 2008 the Irish Department of Agriculture 
launched a new voluntary participation scheme 
for Irish Suckler Herds  called the Animal 
Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme for 
Suckler Herds (AWRBS scheme) 
(http://www.agriculture.gov.ie). The scheme 
was open to pedigree and commercial cattle. A 
component of the scheme involved the farmer 
recording of docility (DOCFARM) and calf 
quality on a scale of 1-5. Individuals with 
scores of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were recorded if the 
animal was very quiet, quiet, average, difficult 
or very difficult. All score sheets were 
submitted to ICBF as part of the scheme. There 
was also an electronic scoring option through 
the Department of Agriculture website or the 
ICBF website. All herds applying for the 
scheme were obliged to sign up to the ICBF 
calf registration recording system called 
Animal Events. Sire recording was also a 
condition of the scheme offering a major 
development  for beef breeding as this criterion  
 
 128
is not compulsory for calf registration. As a 
result more than 90% of the calves born in 
these herds since 1/1/2008 had sires recorded 
on the database. A dataset containing 597,686 
animals scored for DOCFARM was obtained 
from the ICBF database. The percentages of 
DOCFARM scores recorded was as follows: 
12%, 40%, 44%, 3% and 0.3% for scores of 1, 
2, 3, 4, and 5. 96% of DOCFARM scores were 
on crossbred animals. 
 
Pedigree information on all animals was 
obtained from ICBF pedigree files used for 
other genetic evaluations.  
 
Several data edits were imposed before 
inclusion of data in genetic parameter 
estimation. DOCFARM scores which were 
recorded post sale of the animal were omitted 
(loss of 40,475). DOCAWRBS docility scores 
were confined to animals recorded between the 
ages of 150-300 days (loss of 59,534) whereas 
DOCLIN was evaluated at age 150-300 days 
and also 150-600 days as 80,645 DOCLIN 
records were lost when the upper age limit was 
reduced from 600 to 300 days of age at 
scoring. Contemporary groups (CG) were 
defined according to the procedure described 
by Crump et al. (1997) taking into account 
within herd scoring date patterns. 
Contemporary groups with no variation in 
score for either trait were omitted (loss of 
170,147 DOCFARM and 1,737 DOCLIN 
records). An extra edit imposed on the 
DOCFARM data was that there also had to be 
variation in the CG for calf quality which was 
recorded at the same time. Restrictions on 
minimum CG size were set to a minimum of 
10 records for each DOCFARM CG (loss of 
7,374 records) and 5 for each DOCLIN CG 
(loss of 10,532 records). Finally contemporary 
groups with less than 3 sires for DOCFARM 
and less than 2 sires for DOCLIN were omitted 
(loss of 225,497 DOCFARM and 5,319 
DOCLIN records). This left a dataset of 73,827 
DOCFARM and 18,310 DOCLIN records 
(72,228 when age limit raised to 600 days) for 
analysis. A five generation pedigree containing 
404,247 animals was created which included 
genetic groups to account for the multiple 
breeds represented in the analysis. The genetic 
parameters were estimated using DMU (Jensen 
and Madsen, 1996). 
 
Initial univariate analyses were performed 
for the two different docility traits before a 
series of bivariate analyses were investigated. 
Maternal genetic and maternal environmental 
effects on DOCLIN were also investigated. 
 
The following model was used for the 
analysis of DOCLIN assuming a simple animal 
model without maternal genetic or 
environmental effects:  
 
Yijklmnop = + CGj + Sk + SCRl + DAMPm + 
AGEn + HETo + RECp + ai + eijklmnop 
 
The following model was used for the 
analysis of DOCFARM:  
 
Yijlmnop = CGj + Sk + DAMPm + AGEn + HETo 
+ RECp + MEALl + ai + eijklmnop 
 
where: 
 
Yijklmnop = DOCLIN or DOCFARM 
CGj = Fixed effect of scoring date 
contemporary group  
Sk = Fixed effect of sex (male or 
female) 
SCRl = Fixed effect of ICBF linear 
scoring technician (1-16) 
DAMPm = Fixed effect of parity of dam (1, 
2, ≥3) 
AGEn = Age at scoring in days (150-300 
days of age, also 150-600 days 
DOCLIN) 
MEALl = Days on meal feeding at time of 
scoring 
HETo = Coefficient of general heterosis 
RECp = Coefficient of general 
recombination  
ai = random additive effect of animal i 
e = random residual error term 
 
Random animal effects and maternal 
genetic effects were assumed normally 
distributed. The genetic parameters estimated 
from the DMU analysis with the DOCLIN 
upper age limit set to 300 days and no maternal 
or permanent environmental effect were then 
integrated into MIX99 (Lidauer et al., 2006) to 
generate EBVs and reliabilities for routine 
breeding value estimation. The editing criteria 
imposed where each DOCFARM required 3 
sires  and  each  DOCLIN CG  required 2  sires  
 
 129
was relaxed to allow inclusion those CGs with 
single sire representation. Table 2 shows the 
breed representation in the database for the 12 
predominant breeds in the evaluation. 96% of 
the animals with DOCFARM were crossbred 
compared to 39% of the DOCLIN records. The 
dataset was balanced for sex with some 
variations within the smaller breeds for 
DOCLIN. 
 
 
Results and Discussion 
 
Table 1 shows the details of the two bivariate 
analyses with DOCFARM and DOCLIN 
where the upper age limit for DOCLIN was 
varied between 300 and 600 days. There were 
1,238 and 2,304 animals with both types of 
docility score depending on the age limit (2008 
born animals). The heritability of DOCFARM 
(0.44) was found to be higher than DOCLIN 
(average of 0.245) irrespective of the age limit 
set for DOCLIN. As the scoring methodology 
is opposite for the traits (high scores are 
favourable in DOCLIN and low scores are 
favourable in DOCFARM) a negative 
correlation is indicative of a favourable 
relationship between the traits. The age limit 
for DOCLINEAR did affect the genetic 
correlation between the two traits with the 
correlation being higher when the age criteria 
for both traits was the same (-0.68 vs -0.4). 
Phenotypic correlations were lower but in the 
same direction. Older animals tended to be 
more docile for both traits. Increasing levels of 
heterosis and recombination tended to have an 
unfavourable effect on both docility measures 
indicating better docility in pedigree animals. 
Increased number of days on meal feeding 
(average days on meal was 66 days) prior to 
scoring had a positive effect on DOCFARM.  
Maternal effects for DOCLIN were also tested. 
As there was only one year of DOCFARM 
data no maternal effects were applicable. A 
heritability estimate of 0.04 for DOCLIN was 
found for maternal genetic effect which is 
similar to an estimate found in a US Limousine 
study (Beckman et al., 2007). The log 
likelihood indicated a better fit with the 
inclusion of a maternal genetic effect and a 
maternal environmental effect for DOCLIN 
compared to the direct effect only. However 
there was a negative correlation found between 
direct and maternal DOCLIN of -0.47 which is 
also close to the estimate of -0.41 found by 
Beckman et al. (2007) who also found that 
models with random maternal effects resulted 
in better fit than direct alone. In a follow up 
study Beckman and Garrick (2007) concluded 
that the maternal effect was an artefact of the 
data. Therefore, ICBF implemented the model 
without maternal genetic effects for genetic 
evaluation.    
 
Figure 1 is a stock chart showing the breed 
average, top 5 percentile and Bottom 5 
percentiles of predicted transmitting ability 
(PTA) for DOCFARM. The Belgian Blue has 
the highest breed average PTA while the 
Limousine has the lowest breed average. 
However these two breeds also have the largest 
standard deviation hence the largest variation 
in genetic merit for docility within breed. 
Analysis of 84 AI sires across all breeds and 
with >90% reliability for DOCFARM showed 
an 8% increase in the percentage of progeny 
scoring 4 or 5 (unfavourable scores) when 
looking at the Top 20% of sires versus the 
Bottom 20% of sires on docility. The 
DOCFARM proofs were released to the 
industry in Spring 2009 for Active AI sires 
only. It is planned to release the proofs for 
stock bulls and cows in September 2009. 
 
 
Future Developments  
 
A review of the genetic parameters will begin 
when the 2009 generation of DOCLIN and 
DOCFARM scores are available at the end of 
2009. Further areas of work will focus on 
examining the maternal and permanent 
environmental effects. A threshold model will 
also be investigated and compared to the 
current linear approach.  
 
 
References 
 
Beckman, D.W., Enns, R.M., Speidel, S.E., 
Brigham, B.W. & Garrick, D.J. 2007. 
Maternal effects on docility in Limousin 
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 85, 650-657. 
Beckman, D.W. & Garrick, D.J. 2007. 
Heterogeneous variance of docility scores 
in Limousin cattle Proceedings, Western 
Section. American Society of Animal 
Science Vol. 58, 2007. 
BREEDPLAN. University of New England, 
Armidale, NSW, 2352, Australia. 
 130
Crump, R.E., Wray, N.R., Thompson, R. & 
Simm, G. 1997. Assigning pedigree beef 
performance records to contemporary 
groups taking account of within-herd 
calving patterns. Animal Science 65, 193–
198. 
Gauly, M., Mathiak, H., Hoffman, K., Kraus, 
M. & Erhardt, G. 2001. Applied Animal 
Behaviour Science 74, 109-119. 
Golden, B.L., Garrick, D.J., Newman, S. & 
Enns, R.M. 2000. Economically relevant 
traits a framework for the next generation 
of EPDs. Pages 2–13 in Proc. Beef Improv. 
Fed., Wichita, KS.  
Grandin, T. 1989. Behavioral principles of 
livestock handling. Prof. Anim. Sci. 5, 1-11. 
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF), 
Highfield House, Newcestown Road, 
Bandon Co. Cork. 
Irish Department of Agriculture CMMS 
Statistics Report 2006. 
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=p
ublicat/publications2007/CMMS_stats/cmms_
stats.xml  
Le Niendre, P., Trillat, G.,  Sapa, J., Menissier, 
F., Bonnet., J.N. & Chupin., J.M. 1995. 
Individual differences in docility in 
Limousine cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73, 2249-
2253. 
Lidauer, M.H., Strandén, I., Vuori, K. & 
Mantysaari, E. 2006. MiX99 Users Manual.  
https://portal.mtt.fi/pls/mttdocspub/docs/F5667
13457/MIX99.IX-06.MAN.PDF  
Madsen, P. & Jensen, J. 2008. DMU: a user’s 
guide. A package for analysing multivariate 
mixed models. Version 6, release 4.7, 
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus 
University, Denmark. http://dmu.agrsci.dk. 
Morris, C.A., Cullen, N.G., Kilgour, R. & 
Bremner, K.J. 1994. Some genetic factors 
affecting temperament in Bos Taurus cattle. 
N.Z. J. Agric. Rec. 37, 167-175. 
North American Limousin Foundation. 2004. 
Limousin breeders improve temperament. 
Limousin Breeder’s Edge. Vol. 2. NALF, 
Englewood, CO. U.S. 
 
Table 1. Trait variables in bivariate DMU analysis of DOCAWRBS and DOCLIN . 
Trait  
N-obs 
N-obs 
with 
both 
 
Avg. 
 
s.d. 
Age at 
scoring 
(Days) 
 
-
2LogL 
 
 
 
h2 
(s.e.) 
 
rg  * 
(s.e.) 
 
rp  * 
DOCAWRBS 
 
73,827  2.36 0.78 222  0.167 0.44 
(0.018) 
- - 
DOCLINa 
150-300 d 
18,310 1,238 7.3 1.13 239 24449 0.202 0.25 
(0.023) 
-0.68 
(0.06) 
-
0.19 
DOCLINb 
150-600 d 
72,228 2,304 7.3 1.14 338 72468 0.201 0.24 
(0.011) 
-0.40 
(0.05) 
-
0.16 
*Correlation with DOCAWRBS,  = direct genetic variance, h2 = heritability, rg = genetic correlation, 
 rp  = phenotypic correlation 
 
Table 2.  Breed representation in the breeding value estimation dataset, level of crossbred information 
and female representation for both DOCFARM and DOCLIN. 
Breed 
 
 
No. of 
animals 
DOCFARM 
% 
crossbred 
Animals 
DOCFARM 
 
% female 
Animals 
DOCFARM 
 
No. of 
animals 
DOCLIN 
% 
crossbred 
Animals 
DOCLIN 
 
% female 
Animals 
DOCLIN 
Angus 7,893 93% 48% 699 60% 45% 
Aubrac 528 72% 48% 367 28% 56% 
Blonde D’Aq 1,691 96% 48% 530 65% 48% 
Belgian Blue 6,233 99% 50% 1,669 95% 50% 
Charolais 4,8322 97% 49% 9,019 44% 48% 
Hereford 3,384 89% 50% 561 17% 47% 
Limousine 38,195 96% 50% 13,363 28% 47% 
Partenaise 7,893 93% 53% 120 48% 53% 
Piemontese 325 88% 44% 153 22% 60% 
Saler 1,298 92% 51% 337 23% 60% 
Shorthorn 1,010 89% 54% 141 55% 69% 
Simmental 8,555 94% 50% 3,044 42% 49% 
 
 131
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
A
ng
us
A
ub
ra
c
B
lo
nd
e 
D
'A
B
el
gi
an
B
lu
e
C
ha
ro
la
is
H
er
ef
or
d
Li
m
ou
si
ne
Pi
em
on
te
se
Pa
rt
en
ai
se
Sa
le
r
Si
m
m
en
ta
l
Breed
pt
a 
do
ci
lit
y
 
Figure 1. Stock chart showing the breed average, top 5 percentile and Bottom 5 percentile  
of PTA for pedigree animals for the docility trait DOCFARM. 
 


Assigning pedigree beef performance records to contemporary groups taking account of within-herd calving patterns.

Behavioral principles of livestock handling.

DMU: a user’s guide. A package for analysing multivariate mixed models. Version 6, release 4.7, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,

Economically relevant traits a framework for the next generation of EPDs.

Heterogeneous variance of docility scores in Limousin cattle Proceedings,

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=p ublicat/publications2007/CMMS_stats/cmms_ stats.xml

Limousin breeders improve temperament.

Maternal effects on docility in Limousin cattle.

Some genetic factors affecting temperament in Bos Taurus cattle.

Multi-breed genetic evaluation for docility in Irisch Suckler Beef Cattle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

NARCIS

Wageningen Yield