Journal of Animal Science and Technology
Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Estimation of genetic correlations and genomic prediction accuracy for reproductive and carcass traits in Hanwoo cows

Md Azizul Haque1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5158-4558, Asif Iqbal1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4004-1646, Mohammad Zahangir Alam1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-3256, Yun-Mi Lee1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-7474, Jae-Jung Ha2,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6785-6346, Jong-Joo Kim1,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9687-0075
1Department of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea
2Gyeongbuk Livestock Research Institute, Yeongju 36052, Korea
*Corresponding author: Jae-Jung Ha, Gyeongbuk Livestock Research Institute, Yeongju 36052, Korea. Tel: +82-54-630-4549, E-mail: hjjggo@korea.kr
*Corresponding author: Jong-Joo Kim, Department of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea. Tel: +82-53-810-3027, E-mail: kimjj@ynu.ac.kr

© Copyright 2024 Korean Society of Animal Science and Technology. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Apr 25, 2023; Revised: Jul 04, 2023; Accepted: Jul 18, 2023

Published Online: Jul 31, 2024

Abstract

This study estimated the heritabilities (h2) and genetic and phenotypic correlations between reproductive traits, including calving interval (CI), age at first calving (AFC), gestation length (GL), number of artificial inseminations per conception (NAIPC), and carcass traits, including carcass weight (CWT), eye muscle area (EMA), backfat thickness (BF), and marbling score (MS) in Korean Hanwoo cows. In addition, the accuracy of genomic predictions of breeding values was evaluated by applying the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and the weighted GBLUP (WGBLUP) method. The phenotypic data for reproductive and carcass traits were collected from 1,544 Hanwoo cows, and all animals were genotyped using Illumina Bovine 50K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip. The genetic parameters were estimated using a multi-trait animal model using the MTG2 program. The estimated h2 for CI, AFC, GL, NAIPC, CWT, EMA, BF, and MS were 0.10, 0.13, 0.17, 0.11, 0.37, 0.35, 0.27, and 0.45, respectively, according to the GBLUP model. The GBLUP accuracy estimates ranged from 0.51 to 0.74, while the WGBLUP accuracy estimates for the traits under study ranged from 0.51 to 0.79. Strong and favorable genetic correlations were observed between GL and NAIPC (0.61), CWT and EMA (0.60), NAIPC and CWT (0.49), AFC and CWT (0.48), CI and GL (0.36), BF and MS (0.35), NAIPC and EMA (0.35), CI and BF (0.30), EMA and MS (0.28), CI and AFC (0.26), AFC and EMA (0.24), and AFC and BF (0.21). The present study identified low to moderate positive genetic correlations between reproductive and CWT traits, suggesting that a heavier body weight may lead to a longer CI, AFC, GL, and NAIPC. The moderately positive genetic correlation between CWT and AFC, and NAIPC, with a phenotypic correlation of nearly zero, suggesting that the genotype-environment interactions are more likely to be responsible for the phenotypic manifestation of these traits. As a result, the inclusion of these traits by breeders as selection criteria may present a good opportunity for developing a selection index to increase the response to the selection and identification of candidate animals, which can result in significantly increased profitability of production systems.

Keywords: Carcass traits; Correlation; Hanwoo; Heritability; Reproductive traits

INTRODUCTION

Hanwoo is one of the oldest autochthonous cattle breeds in the world. Up to the 1960s, it was used primarily for farming on the Korean peninsula [1]. The Hanwoo has steadily been converted by Korean farmers from agricultural animals to beef cattle since the 1960s. The meat of choice in recent years has been locally raised Korean cattle, and it is priced accordingly. Hanwoo beef is renowned for its thick marbling, flavorful beefiness, and somewhat sweet flavor. It is also healthier than meat from other cattle breeds because it contains more omega-3 fatty acids with less cholesterol [2].

Reproduction traits play a vital role in the beef cattle industry as they directly influence the efficiency and profitability of production systems. Key reproductive traits, such as calving interval (CI), age at first calving (AFC), gestation length (GL), and number of artificial inseminations per conception (NAIPC), are of great importance in beef cattle breeding programs. These traits not only affect the reproductive performance of individual animals but also have significant impacts on overall herd productivity and management. A shorter calving interval enables more frequent calf production, leading to increased productivity and potential economic gains. It also facilitates efficient management practices such as grouping calves for marketing and optimizing nutrition management. AFC influences lifetime productivity and profitability, as early maturing females have an extended reproductive lifespan, resulting in a higher cumulative number of calves produced. Achieving optimal a AFC maximizes heifer utilization and minimizes costs associated with delayed breeding. GL, influencing reproductive efficiency and overall management, demands accurate knowledge for optimal calving planning, timely calving assistance, postpartum care. Furthermore, comprehending the genetic control of GL informs breeding strategies to achieve desired calving seasons and synchronization protocols. The NAIPC is crucial for reproductive success, with higher conception rates and fewer inseminations reducing costs while expediting genetic progress through more efficient use of superior sires. Improving fertility and reducing artificial inseminations enhance reproductive performance and drive increased profitability in beef cattle operations [3]. Challenges such as low reproductive capacity and infertility can result in extended durations between calvings, requiring additional interventions such as extra inseminations, increased veterinary attention, and hormonal treatments [4]. These interventions can disrupt current and subsequent lactations, leading to decreased productivity.

In cow breeding systems, the breed, sex, class, and location affect reproduction differently [5]. The outstanding performance of male and female reproduction is a requirement for effective beef production techniques. Successfully incorporating reproductive features into genetic improvement projects requires advances in analysis techniques and whole-herd reporting [5]. The estimated breeding value (EBV) and the reliability of anticipated breeding values (EBVs) are critical for selecting superior offspring to replace the present generation. The reliability of EBVs can be influenced by several factors, including selection intensity, pedigree errors, and generation interval [6]. According to the most recent studies, reproduction should be prioritized in a traditional cow-calf operation to maximize profitability. Even in a fully integrated cattle farm, reproduction necessitates an equal emphasis on attributes related to consumption and output. Genomic selection can give a large boost to the existing rates of genetic gain for beef by enhancing the accuracy of reproductive traits. The problem for cattle breeding is to improve the genetic variations identified by genomic estimations for those aspects of high genetic value that have less precision at the time of selection. The accuracy of genomic selection is currently poorer in beef cattle than in dairy cattle because of the relatively limited sample size with phenotypes and genotypes used to refine genomic prediction equations. For common heritable features, such as female reproductive traits, additional genotyped and phenotyped animals are needed to improve the accuracy of genomic predictions in beef cattle.

The Korean beef sector is seeing increased demand for genetically improving carcass qualities. The key qualities in the Hanwoo breeding program that were chosen and included in a selection index to boost the profitability of the meat industry were the carcass weight (CWT), back fat thickness (BF), eye muscle area (EMA), and marbling score (MS).

The genetic architecture of economically significant traits has been investigated regularly across many cattle populations since genotyping tools and enhanced genetic evaluation methodology emerged. Genome-wide association analyses have recently been used to find single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with reproduction traits in cows [7].

The correlations generally indicate how closely two traits are related [8]. A deeper knowledge of the common biological pathways and the causation linkages between two traits may be achieved by the genetic correlation, which explains the genetic relationship between two traits [9]. A strong correlation between two variables indicates their strong relationships and vice versa [10]. Typically, the correlation of the breeding values of traits is used to define the genetic correlation [11]. The genes contributing to the traits are typically co-inherited when two traits are significantly genetically connected. The phenotypic and genetic correlations are powerful tools for predicting how one trait would respond to selection due to selection on another [8]. When selecting for overall merit incorporating multiple traits, the genetic correlation reflects the degree to which two traits are affected by the same genes or genes present within the same chromosome. According to calculations of the genetic correlation between two traits, selection for one trait may indirectly affect the genetic response for the other trait [12]. The pleiotropy of genes is the leading cause of the correlation, but linkage disequilibrium can also play a role [11]. A thorough understanding of the genetic variation of economically significant reproduction and production traits and precise estimation of genetic and phenotypic correlations of economically significant traits are also necessary for establishing effective genetic improvement programs [13]. Nevertheless, the genetic and phenotypic relationships between the reproductive and carcass traits of Korean Hanwoo cattle are poorly understood. The genetic parameters, genomic prediction accuracy, and correlations (phenotypic and genetic) among reproductive and carcass traits in Hanwoo cows were calculated to achieve these goals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animal phenotypes

The data were collected using an existing database from 1,544 Hanwoo cows born between 2007 and 2020 and slaughtered between 2018 and 2022 and were part of nine (9) local livestock farms spread over the Gyeongsangbuk-do region in South Korea. All cows were slaughtered between 24 and 178 months of age. The analysis included reproductive traits, such as CI, AFC, GL, and the NAIPC, as well as the carcass traits like CWT, EMA, BF, and MS. The Animal Care and Use Committee’s permission was not required for this study because all the data were obtained from the existing database. After a quality assessment, the remaining data included the values for CI ranging from 242 to 601 days, AFC between 499 and 999 days, GL between 252 and 337 days, CWT between 160 and 541 kg, EMA between 22 and 131 cm2, BF between 2 and 39 mm, and MS scores between 1 and 9. The records of animals with a NAIPC above four were eliminated from the dataset. The Korean carcass grading procedure by the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation was used to record the phenotypic data for carcass traits, including CWT, EMA, BF, and MS. The CWT was measured on samples taken after 24 hours postmortem at the end of refrigeration. EMA was measured using a dot-grid method with a cross-sectional slice between the 13th rib and the 1st lumbar vertebrae perpendicular to the vertebral column, where BF was also measured. A visual assessment of the MS was conducted using a categorical system of nine levels, based on the Korean Livestock Products Grading Guideline, ranging from 1 (no marbling) to 9 (high marbling). The details of phenotypic distribution information for the studied animals are presented in Fig. 1.

jast-66-4-682-g1
Fig. 1. Phenotypic distribution. (A) Reproductive traits and (B) Carcass traits in Hanwoo cows. The red dashed lines indicate the mean of the trait. CI, calving interval; AFC, age at first calving; GL, gestation length; NAIPC, number of artificial inseminations per conception; CWT, carcass weight; EMA, eye muscle area; BF, backfat thickness; MS, marbling score.
Download Original Figure
Genotypic data

The 1,544 Hanwoo cows used in this study were genotyped using Illumina Bovine 50K SNP Chip (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA), in which 52,116 SNPs were embedded. The blood samples collected by veterinarians were used to obtain the DNA. SNPs located on sex chromosomes and with unknown and duplicate positions were removed for further quality control (QC) procedures. Several QC thresholds were set to remove poor-quality SNPs for further analysis. SNPs were discarded from the analysis when the SNP call rate was less than 90%, individuals with a genotyping call rate less than 90%, and minor allele frequency (MAF) was less than 1% (monomorphic). The genotype frequency significantly deviated (p < 0.000001) from Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE). The identity-by-state (IBS) test was performed to determine if there were similar individuals or genotyping errors in the datasets. The pair of individuals showing a similarity rate > 99% indicates an identical animal or error in genotyping. The entire QC process and IBS test were performed through PLINK v1.9 [14]. Furthermore, the missing alleles were imputed using Beagle v5.4 software [15]. After IBS and QC, 1,526 animals with genotypes of 41,445 SNPs were available for further analysis.

Statistical analysis
Genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP)

The dataset fit for an animal model with a genomic relationship matrix (GRM) was performed to obtain the breeding values, including 1,103 complete records of all eight traits. The birth year and birth season were combined into one composite fixed effect. The fixed covariate of age at slaughter was also fitted with traits. The additive genetic effect of the animal was fitted as a random genetic component in the model. The genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were predicted using MTG2 v2.2 computer program [16]. The multi-trait animal model was implemented as follows [17]:

y = X b + Z u + e

where y represents the vector of phenotypic records (trait) for an n-animal sample; Xb is the fixed effects [18]; Zu is the overall marker loci which are assumed to equal the vector of breeding values (a); e is the vector of random residual effect which is assumed to be normally distributed with N (0, Iσe2). In addition, var(u)=Gσu2 where σu2 is the genetic variance, and G denotes the GRM, which was constructed using the following equation [17]:

G = ( M P ) ( M P ) 2 i = 1 n p i ( 1 p i )

where the marker matrix M has dimensions of n × m; n is the number of individuals; m is the number of markers used. The element of the P matrix was calculated using the formula, Pi = 2 (Pi – 0.5), where Pi represents the MAF of the marker at locus i. (M−P) represents the incidence matrix (Z) for markers.

The GRM was constructed using the genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA) tools developed by Yang et al. [19], which effectively retains the genomic relationship between animals [17].

Weighted genomic best linear unbiased prediction (WGBLUP)

The WGBLUP model and inferences were the same as the above-described GBLUP technique, which had a different way of constructing the matrix G. The G-matrix above was developed assuming that each SNP explains the same proportion of genetic variance [20]. Wang et al. [21] introduced the WGBLUP method and used the weighted G (G*) for significant SNPs with comparatively substantial effects. This GRM G* was constructed as follows [17]:

G = Z D Z 2 i = 1 n p i ( 1 p i )

where Z, pi, and n are the same as GBLUP, and D is the diagonal matrix in the WGBLUP technique, and its values were determined by the weights derived from the SNP solutions discussed by Wang et al. [21]. Following Strandén and Garrick [22], the following can be derived:

u ^ = D Z G 1 g

where û is the vector of estimated SNP effects, and ĝ is a vector of GEBV from only genotyped individuals. The weight for SNP i in this study was calculated as ui2. Constructing an algorithm for predicting D from GBLUP is possible using the above equation. The algorithm was as follows for the iterative steps of the WGBLUP, as stated by Wang et al. [21]:

  1. Set t = 0, D(t) = I, where t is the iteration number, and I denotes the identity matrix.

  2. The construct matrix Gt = ZD(t)Zλ, where t is the iteration number; The incidence matrix Z equals the matrix M minus matrix P, in which M is n x m where n is the number of individuals and m is the number of markers used, and P represents to 2pi.

  3. Compute genomic EBV (GEBV, ĝ) utilizing the GBLUP method.

  4. Calculate SNP effects of all SNP as u^(t)=λD(t)ZG(t)1ag.

  5. Calculate SNP weight as di(t+1)=u^i(t)22pi(1pi), where i is the ith SNP [23].

  6. Normalize matrix D(t+1)=tr(D(0))tr(D(t+1))D(t+1).

  7. Construct the matrix G(t+1) = ZD(t+1)Z’λ.

  8. t = t+1.

  9. Exit or loop to steps iii or iv.

Breeding values were predicted using BLUPF90+ software [24], while the calculation of SNP effects for WGBLUP was performed using the postGSf90 software [25].

Estimation of variance components and heritability

The total phenotypic variance (σp2) was calculated as follows:

σ p 2 = σ u 2 + σ e 2

The heritability (h2) values for each trait were calculated using the following formula:

h 2 = σ u 2 σ u 2 + σ e 2 = σ u 2 σ p 2

where σu2 is the genetic variance; σe2 is the residual variance; and σp2 is the phenotypic variance.

Estimation of genomic estimated breeding value

The GEBV of an animal i was calculated after estimating the marker effects using the following formula below:

G E B V i = j = 1 m z i j g ^ j

where m is the number of markers; is the individual i genotype at marker loci ĝj; is the allele substitution effect at locus marker j.

Estimation of the model accuracy

The following formula was used to estimate the GEBV accuracy for an animal i [26]:

A c c u r a c y i = 1 P E V σ g 2

where σg2 is the additive genetic variance of each trait, and PEV is the predicted error variance of the GEBV for each animal. The inverse of the coefficient matrix of the mixed model equation, as previously defined [17], can be used to calculate each PEV estimate in each individual. For each animal and trait, this study first calculated the standard error of prediction (or the square root of PEV), which was transformed into an estimate of the PEV. The only other element in the equation is the additive genetic variance or σg2. Each trait was calculated individually using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method from the same dataset.

Genetic and phenotypic correlation

The genetic and phenotypic (co)variances were estimated using pairwise bivariate animal model implemented in MTG2 v2.22 software. The animal model for the analysis of two traits or bivariate analysis is written as [27]:

[ y 1 y 2 ] = [ X 1 0 0 X 2 ] [ b 1 b 2 ] + [ Z 1 0 0 Z 2 ] [ u 1 u 2 ] + [ e 1 e 2 ]

where, y1 and y2 represents the observation vectors corresponding to individuals for traits 1 and 2. The vectors b1 and b2 denotes the fixed effects for traits 1 and 2, while u1 and u2 are vectors representing the additive genetic effects for traits 1 and 2, respectively. The e1 and e2 are the vectors of residual effects for traits 1 and 2. X and Z are the incidence matrices related to effects b and u, respectively.

The genetic (rg), and phenotypic (rp) correlations were estimated using the following formula:

r g = σ g X , Y σ g X 2 σ g Y 2 ; r p = σ p X , Y σ p X 2 σ p Y 2

where σgX,Y, and σpX,Y are the genetic, and phenotypic covariance between traits X and Y; σg2 represents the additive genetic variance; σp2 is the phenotypic variance of the corresponding traits.

In addition, the coefficient of the genetic variation (CVg) was calculated as the square root of the additive genetic variance divided by the mean of the trait.

C V g % = σ g x ¯ × 100

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Phenotypes and genotypes

Table 1 lists the summary statistics (mean, maximum, minimum, standard deviations, and phenotypic coefficient of variation) of the studied traits of 1,103 animals consisting of the Hanwoo population. The mean values for CI, AFC, GL, NAIPC, CWT, EMA, BF, and MS in this study were 378.43 days, 741.19 days, 286.45 days, 1.29, 374.86 kg, 87.81 cm2, 13.49 mm and 4.08, respectively. NAIPC (49.35%) showed the highest phenotypic variability. On the other hand, the phenotypic variability was lower in the GL among the reproductive traits and in the CWT among the carcass traits. The mean values for the reproductive traits are lower than those published earlier [2832] and higher than in other studies [33,34]. Noticeable differences in the sample sizes among studies were found, which might explain some of the variations of estimation in the present study and other reports. A longer calving interval is often related to lower fertility due to an undesirable conception rate. A recent report [35] found that the average values for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS were 447 kg, 93.75 cm2, 12.80 mm, and 4.89, respectively, in the Hanwoo steer population. Another experiment on the Hanwoo population conducted over a period from 1989 to 2015 reported that the average for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS at approximately 24 months of slaughter age was 343.96 kg, 78.90 cm2, 8.71 mm, and 3.33, respectively [36].

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the reproductive and carcass traits
Traits N Mean SD Max Min CV (%)
CI (days) 1,103 378.43 53.82 601 242 14.22
AFC (days) 1,103 741.19 73.86 999 499 9.97
GL (days) 1,103 286.45 6.72 337 252 2.35
NAIPC (1-4) 1,103 1.29 0.64 4 1 49.35
CWT (kg) 1,103 374.86 49.93 541 160 13.32
EMA (cm2) 1,103 87.81 12.81 131 22 14.58
BF (mm) 1,103 13.49 5.84 39 2 43.28
MS (1–9) 1,103 4.08 1.93 9 1 47.31

N, number of individuals; CV, coefficient of variation; CI, calving interval; AFC, age at first calving; GL, gestation length; NAIPC, number of artificial inseminations per conception; CWT, carcass weight; EMA, eye muscle area; BF, backfat thickness; MS, marbling score.

Download Excel Table

A set of 41,445 common SNPs was selected after the QC test, which covered 79.52% of initial SNPs on all 29 Bos taurus autosomes (BTA). The markers were unsteadily distributed with substantial over-representation on certain chromosomes. BTA 1 contains the highest number of SNP markers (2,614), covering a length of 52.10 Mb, while BTA 28 had the lowest number of SNPs (714). Finally, Table 2 lists the SNP information after the IBS test and QC procedure.

Table 2. SNP statistics after QC for Hanwoo autosomes
BTA No. of SNPs before QC No. of SNPs after QC Remove frequency Average distance (kb) Standard deviation (kb) Min distance (kb) Max distance (kb) Total distance (Mb)
1 3,221 2,614 0.23 60.50 54.60 0.05 936.23 52.10
2 2,756 2,181 0.26 62.70 68.00 0.08 1,087.31 84.73
3 2,579 2,038 0.27 59.50 62.30 0.01 863.15 42.65
4 2,477 1,932 0.28 62.10 53.20 0.03 507.93 83.84
5 2,154 1,662 0.30 72.90 70.60 0.04 818.54 113.01
6 3,157 2,526 0.25 47.10 56.80 0.03 1,601.81 83.13
7 2,478 2,020 0.23 55.70 66.30 0.13 1,177.03 63.54
8 2,243 1,776 0.26 63.70 54.20 0.08 547.23 51.10
9 2,073 1,623 0.28 65.00 62.70 0.45 642.76 62.10
10 2,355 1,872 0.26 55.70 92.80 0.07 ,3259.34 118.98
11 2,179 1,717 0.27 62.50 58.90 0.13 833.19 121.14
12 1,650 1,252 0.32 72.60 120.60 0.24 2,470.22 46.18
13 1,681 1,331 0.26 63.00 55.20 0.07 715.70 65.16
14 2,266 1,806 0.25 46.10 46.50 0.01 505.77 157.88
15 1,665 1,312 0.27 64.60 64.90 0.01 969.41 45.33
16 1,598 1,241 0.29 65.70 70.20 0.18 1,360.52 74.85
17 1,567 1,229 0.28 61.00 65.50 0.16 1,301.14 136.66
18 1,301 1,041 0.25 62.70 63.10 0.51 966.71 71.10
19 1,377 1,120 0.23 56.80 53.30 0.73 586.98 107.18
20 1,568 1,237 0.27 57.90 52.00 0.47 559.10 90.83
21 1,397 1,149 0.22 61.90 70.30 0.49 1,322.35 112.38
22 1,209 969 0.25 63.20 52.80 0.09 494.16 61.22
23 1,124 924 0.22 56.40 53.80 0.32 488.53 81.41
24 1,229 1,000 0.23 62.20 52.90 0.06 454.80 50.95
25 937 783 0.20 54.50 45.50 0.07 332.62 120.01
26 1,030 825 0.25 61.80 47.50 0.28 394.54 105.46
27 917 745 0.23 60.90 60.20 0.15 587.19 121.08
28 902 714 0.26 64.80 56.70 0.02 555.53 104.17
29 1,026 806 0.27 63.50 65.40 0.03 1,060.19 71.59
Total 52,116 41,445 0.26 (Average) 60.93 (Average) 61.96 (Average) 0.17 (Average) 944.83 (Average) 2,499.76

SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; QC, quality control; BTA, Bos taurus autosomes; kb, kilobases; Mb, megabases.

Download Excel Table
Heritability estimation

The h2 and variance components were estimated with standard errors for all reproductive and carcass traits using the markers and phenotypic information, as presented in Table 3. The estimates of h2 for CI, AFC, GL, NAIPC, CWT, EMA, BF, and MS were 0.10 ± 0.05, 0.13 ± 0.05, 0.17 ± 0.06, 0.11 ± 0.04, 0.37 ± 0.07, 0.35 ± 0.07, 0.27 ± 0.06, and 0.45 ± 0.07, respectively. The average h2 values for the carcass and reproductive traits were estimated to be 0.13 and 0.36, respectively. Higher h2 values were observed in the GL among the reproductive traits and MS among the carcass traits. For the reproductive traits in this study, the estimated h2 values were in the range of low h2. The observed low h2 estimates were comparable to previously reported estimates in other beef breeds. Lopez et al. [34] reported low h2 estimates for a CI of 0.01, GL of 0.14 in Hanwoo cattle, and high h2 estimates for an AFC of 0.08 in the same breed. In Japanese Black (Wagyu) cattle, h2 estimates of 0.049 [31] and 0.047 [37] for CI, 0.215 [37], and 0.158 [31] for AFC, and 0.020 for NAIPC [31] were described. Yagüe et al. [32] reported estimated h2 of 0.085, 0.037, and 0.071 for CI, GL, and NAIPC, respectively. Several studies reported the estimates of heritability h2 for CI was 0.222 in Jersey × Red Sindhi [38], 0.105 [39], and 0.02 [40] in Nelore cattle, and 0.09 in Brahman-Angus cattle [41]. Alejandro et al. [42] reported a higher h2 of 0.20 for AFC in Simmental cattle.

Table 3. Estimates of heritability, additive genetic variance, residual variance, phenotypic variance, and coefficient of genetic variance for reproductive and carcass traits in Hanwoo cows
Traits h2 σ a 2 σ e 2 σ p 2 CVg (%)
CI 0.10 (0.05)1) 280.41 (143.80) 2,616.93 (170.65) 2,902.65 (127.75) 4.42
AFC 0.13 (0.05) 697.16 (275.85) 4,689.72 (311.90) 5,383.78 (236.91) 3.56
GL 0.17 (0.06) 7.54 (2.58) 37.51 (2.72) 45.44 (2.05) 0.96
NAIPC 0.11 (0.04) 0.04 (0.02) 0.37 (0.02) 0.41 (0.02) 15.50
CWT 0.37 (0.07) 918.70 (185.23) 1,546.92 (152.21) 2,491.93 (118.34) 8.09
EMA 0.35 (0.07) 56.87 (12.19) 105.91 (10.20) 163.64 (7.68) 8.59
BF 0.27 (0.06) 9.08 (2.28) 24.08 (2.06) 33.33 (1.54) 22.34
MS 0.45 (0.07) 1.66 (0.29) 2.07 (0.22) 3.74 (0.18) 31.58

The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

h2, heritability; σa2, genetic variance; σe2, residual variance; σp2, phenotypic variance; CVg, coefficient of genetic variance; CI, calving interval; AFC, age at first calving; GL, gestation length; NAIPC, number of artificial inseminations per conception; CWT, carcass weight; EMA, eye muscle area; BF, backfat thickness; MS, marbling score.

Download Excel Table

The h2 estimates for carcass traits in this study differ considerably from those obtained in previous studies by Naserkheil et al. [43]. They reported the h2 values for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS of 0.28, 0.46, 0.57, and 0.59, respectively, using the pedigree-based GBLUP method. Another report on the genetic analysis of carcass traits for Hanwoo beef cattle on 6,092 animals from 2005 to 2017 showed corresponding h2 values of CWT as 0.35±0.04, 0.43±0.05, 0.48±0.05, and 0.56±0.05, respectively, using a pedigree-based GBLUP model [35].

h2 estimates based on the 50K SNP Chip for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS in this present study agreed with those observed by Srivastava et al. [44] for a population of 7,324 Korean Hanwoo cattle. On the other hand, Lopez et al. [45] suggested that the estimated h2 with 50K SNP panel in Korean Hanwoo cattle for carcass traits was medium to high, ranging from 0.32 to 0.40 based on GRM.

According to CVg, the results showed significant additive genetic variation for NAIPC (15.50%), BF (22.34), and MS (31.58%), compared to relatively lower additive genetic variation for the other traits (0.96% to 8.59%). The evolvability of a trait is determined by its genetic variability [46], which impacts how easily traits can be altered by breeding. In other words, the predicted genetic gain for NAIPC, BF, and MS will be higher than other traits (using the standardized scale).

The low h2 estimate observed in our study can be attributed to several factors that warrant further discussion. Firstly, it is important to highlight that in our study, the h2 was calculated using markers and phenotypic information without access to pedigree records. The absence of pedigree information can impact the accuracy of h2 estimates, as pedigree records play a crucial role in capturing true genetic relationships among individuals. Studies that utilized pedigree information or a complete dataset of individuals have reported higher h2 estimates for carcass traits. Moreover, our study was limited by a relatively small sample size, and this factor can also influence the estimation of h2. A reduced sample size may result in diminished statistical power to accurately detect genetic effects. Given these limitations, it is expected that the h2 estimates for carcass traits in our study would be lower compared to investigations with pedigree information and larger sample sizes. Furthermore, there may be differences in the slaughter age of the animals, such as the number of records, the breed, differences in the fixed effects, and the statistical models used for analyses, which could account for the disparity between the estimates of this study and those of previous studies. In addition, the differences in h2 can be explained by the varying genotype-environment interactions. However, despite these challenges, our study provides valuable insights into the h2 of carcass traits using marker-based methods and highlights the need for more comprehensive studies with larger sample sizes and pedigree information to obtain more accurate h2 estimates.

Estimation of genomic estimated breeding value prediction accuracy

The GEBV accuracy for reproductive and carcass traits in Hanwoo cows was estimated using the GBLUP and WGBLUP models with a complete data set. Generally, the predictive accuracy for most traits slightly varied between GBLUP and WGBLUP models (Table 4). The accuracy of the genomic predictions ranged from 0.51 to 0.60 in reproductive traits and 0.68 to 0.74 in carcass traits using the GBLUP model, whereas the accuracy ranged between 0.51 and 0.66 in the reproductive traits, and 0.72 and 0.79 in the carcass traits in WGBLUP model, respectively. The average accuracy for reproductive traits in the studied population was approximately 0.54 (GBLUP) – 0.57 (WGBLUP) and approximately 0.71 (GBLUP) – 0.76 (WGBLUP) for carcass traits. The average GEBV accuracy in the WGBLUP indicated more positive changes than GBLUP (5.6% in the reproductive traits and 6.7% in the carcass traits) among the GEBV estimates of all studied traits. In this study, the WGBLUP showed obvious superiority over the GBLUP method. Currently, the genomic selection is applied in beef cattle on a large scale, focusing mainly on the carcass traits [20,47].

Table 4. Accuracy of the genomic predictions of Hanwoo cows
Traits GBLUP WGBLUP
Mean SD Max Min Mean SD Max Min
Reproductive traits
 CI 0.51 0.04 0.62 0.14 0.56 0.03 0.66 0.43
 AFC 0.52 0.04 0.62 0.15 0.55 0.03 0.64 0.42
 GL 0.60 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.66 0.03 0.74 0.48
 NAIPC 0.53 0.04 0.62 0.16 0.51 0.03 0.62 0.37
Carcass traits
 CWT 0.73 0.03 0.79 0.33 0.77 0.02 0.81 0.57
 EMA 0.68 0.03 0.75 0.29 0.74 0.02 0.79 0.54
 BF 0.68 0.03 0.74 0.29 0.72 0.02 0.79 0.55
 MS 0.74 0.03 0.80 0.34 0.79 0.02 0.84 0.61

GBLUP, genomic best linear unbiased prediction; WGBLUP, weighted GBLUP; CI, calving interval; AFC, age at first calving; GL, gestation length; NAIPC, number of artificial inseminations per conception; CWT, carcass weight; EMA, eye muscle area; BF, backfat thickness; MS, marbling score.

Download Excel Table

Some studies have been conducted to evaluate the average prediction accuracy of genomic evaluations using GBLUP and ssGBLUP methods for the reproductive traits on different populations, such as Canadian Holstein [48] and Nelore cattle [49]. The genomic evaluation accuracy for the reproductive traits varied among breeds, the genetic architecture of the traits studied, statistical method, effects of SNPs, and the used SNP set. For AFC, Laodim et al. [50] reported that the accuracy performance of the ssGBLUP model was 0.297 and between 0.23 and 0.33 for Thai crossbreed animals and Nelore cattle, respectively, using another three different Bayesian statistical methods [51] and appeared to be a lower value compared to the present findings.

In Nelore cattle, the average prediction accuracy ranged between 0.38 and 0.42 by GBLUP and Bayesian method for the same trait [52], which partially supports our results for AFC accuracy. Boddhireddy et al. [53] showed a higher accuracy of prediction in Nelore cattle using the BayesC method for reproductive traits, which was 0.64.

Some studies reported the performance of genomic prediction models for various traits in different breeds [5456]. Kim et al. [58] observed high prediction accuracy using 919 Hanwoo cattle by the GBLUP method, and the prediction accuracies obtained for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS were 0.779, 0.758, 0.766, and 0.791, respectively. On the other hand, the genomic prediction accuracy varied among traits while using GRM constructed on a 50K SNP panel; the genomic prediction accuracy for CWT, EMA, BF, and MS were 0.63, 0.58, 0.55, and 0.56, respectively [45]. By contrast, lower accuracy was also observed using a 50K SNP chip for Korean Hanwoo cattle in the GBLUP method, with EMA, BF, and MS values ranging from 0.27 to 0.30, respectively [1].

Genetic and phenotypic correlation

Table 5 lists the genetic and phenotypic correlations among the reproductive and carcass traits. The genetic and phenotypic correlations between traits were analyzed using the genetic and phenotypic variance and the covariance of the two traits. The estimates of the genetic correlation between reproductive and carcass traits were low to high, ranging from −0.56 ± 0.03 to 0.61 ± 0.03. Acccording to Dahliani et al. [59], the correlation values were divided into the following categories: very low (0.00 to 0.19), low (0.20 to 0.39), moderate (0.40 to 0.59), strong (0.60 to 0.79), and very strong (0.80 to 1.00). Strong positive genetic correlations were found between GL and NAIPC (0.61 ± 0.03) and CWT and EMA (0.60 ± 0.02), as represented in Table 5, which were the highest correlations among the trait pairs. Furthermore, the strength of the associations between NAIPC and CWT (0.49 ± 0.03) and AFC and CWT (0.48 ± 0.03) were moderate and positive. Hence, the selection of these traits could be advantageous. This strong positive genetic correlation could be due to pleiotropy, wherein a gene or a set of genes influences two traits and results in the genetic correlation between these traits [60].

Table 5. Estimates of the genetic (above the diagonal) and phenotypic (below the diagonal) correlations (standard error in parentheses) among reproductive and carcass traits in Hanwoo cows
Trait CI AFC GL NAIPC CWT EMA BF MS
CI 1.00 0.26 (0.01) 0.36 (0.03) −0.56 (0.03) 0.09 (0.02) −0.03 (0.03) 0.30 (0.03) −0.21 (0.03)
AFC 0.05 (0.02) 1.00 −0.41 (0.02) −0.01 (0.03) 0.48 (0.03) 0.24 (0.03) 0.21 (0.01) −0.04 (0.03)
GL −0.06 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 1.00 0.61 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) −0.14 (0.06) −0.09 (0.08) 0.07 (0.03)
NAIPC −0.03 (0.08) 0.30 (0.02) 0.05 (0.03) 1.00 0.49 (0.03) 0.35 (0.03) −0.04 (0.05) −0.15 (0.03)
CWT 0.01 (0.03) −0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.04 (0.03) 1.00 0.60 (0.02) −0.12 (0.03) 0.13 (0.03)
EMA −0.02 (0.01) 0.03 (0.04) −0.00 (0.02) 0.05 (0.03) 0.66 (0.02) 1.00 −0.18 (0.03) 0.28 (0.03)
BF 0.04 (0.03) −0.04 (0.03) 0.03 (0.07) −0.02 (0.01) 0.29 (0.03) 0.09 (0.03) 1.00 0.35 (0.02)
MS −0.01 (0.03) −0.03 (0.01) 0.07 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03) 0.29 (0.03) 0.33 (0.03) 0.14 (0.03) 1.00

CI, calving interval; AFC, age at first calving; GL, gestation length; NAIPC, number of artificial inseminations per conception; CWT, carcass weight; EMA, eye muscle area; BF, backfat thickness; MS, marbling score.

Download Excel Table

Positive phenotypic (0.05 ± 0.02) and genetic correlations (0.26 ± 0.0١) were observed between CI and AFC. The genetic associations between CI and AFC were stronger than the phenotypic correlations. Shin et al. [61] reported a comparable positive association between these traits in Hanwoo cows, which strongly supports the present study. The moderate genetic associations between reproductive traits have the same sign as patterns that can be observed phenotypically [62,63]. Gutiérrez et al. [64] reported a favorable genetic correlation (0.233) in beef cattle between CI and AFC. In contrast to the genetic association, which was only weakly positive (0.10), Lôbo [65] discovered a high positive phenotypic correlation between AFC and CI (0.43). In these results, AFC appears to be an important characteristic reflecting the reproductive health of cows. An improvement in the CI performance would result from the selection for a shorter AFC. Berry and Evans [66] estimated a positive genetic association of 0.22, while Lopez et al. [34] reported a correlation of 0.52; however, the genetic correlation between AFC and CI was only found to be between 0.09 [28] and −0.25 during the first 42 days of the calving season. In contrast, CI with AFC was a low negative correlation, which is not an agreement reported elsewhere [67,68]. They reported negative correlations between CI and AFC of −0.13 for Brahman cattle and −0.06 for Nelore cattle.

The calculated weak positive associations between GL and CI also agree with Lopez et al. [34]. The phenotypic correlation of 0.04 between GL and AFC is consistent with earlier investigations [34]. These outcomes resembled those in Nellore cows, as reported by Ulhôa Magnabosco et al. [69]. Oyama et al. [70] also mentioned the genetic relationships between GL and CI of 0.16. Bekele et al. [71] reported strong positive genetic correlations between GL and CI in Fogera cattle, 0.72.

The strongest correlation among all the trait pairs in this analysis was obtained between GL and NAIPC (0.61 ± 0.03), which showed a significant genetic relationship. On the other hand, the CI showed the highest negative correlation with NAIPC (−0.56 ± 0.03) and AFC with GL (−0.41 ± 0.02). Similar findings have been achieved in Japanese Black cattle by Setiaji and Oikawa [72], who reported the positive genetic and phenotypic correlation between NAIPC and GL. NAIPC was recorded before conception, and GL represents a heifer’s ability to sustain the pregnancy until the day of calving. As a result, the strong genetic link shows that these two traits are related genetically and might be influenced by a group of genes. As a result, choosing one of the traits would have a significant impact on the other.

This study found that estimates of genetic association between traits ranged widely. The traits of Hanwoo cows, CWT and EMA, are highly and positively associated, suggesting that animals with a higher EMA will result from selection for increasing the CWT. This correlation estimate was similar to that of Park et al. [73] and Choi et al. [74], who used Hanwoo males to report values between 0.52 ± 0.08 and 0.55 using similar features. Other Hanwoo research revealed the same positive association [35,43,7577]. The association between CWT and EMA was supported by several different studies involving Angus [7881], Brangus [82,83], Angus–Brahman [84], Canadian crossbred cattle [85], Nellore cattle [86], Heriford, Simmental [87], Brazilian Nelore [88], Brahman [89,90], and other crossbred cattle [91].

The genetic correlation of BF with CWT (−0.12 ± 0.03) and EMA (−0.18 ± 0.03) was negative, which is financially feasible for the beef industry because CWT and EMA will increase if BF decreases and make the carcass profitable. Davoli et al. [92] obtained similar results in Large White pigs and revealed negative genetic correlations between CWT and BF. In the case of the fat content, BF is associated with MS (0.35 ± 0.02), which increases the juiciness of the meat.

According to these findings, the genetic correlation between EMA and MS was determined to be positive and fairly moderate (0.28 ± 0.03), similar to the results from other research [74,89,90,93], but significantly lower than the estimate of 0.65 published by Hwang et al. [94] in Hanwoo population.

In this study, the findings of the genetic correlation between reproductive and carcass traits were moderate to low, or negative. All reproductive traits have moderate to weak positive genetic correlations with CWT. MacNeil et al. [95] also reported a lower correlation of GL with CWT, which was also close to zero. On the other hand, EMA showed positive genetic correlations between AFC (0.24 ± 0.03) and NAIPC (0.35 ± 0.03). Furthermore, BF also showed a weakly positive genetic correlation with CI and AFC. The highest positive genetic correlations between the reproductive and carcass traits were between NAIPC and CWT (0.49 ± 0.03) and AFC and CWT (0.48 ± 0.03). In contrast, negative genetic correlations were found between AFC and MS. Negative results have also been reported [96,97], showing that the AFC can be lowered by increasing the meat and fat deposition. Higher subcutaneous fat deposition may signal faster maturation and make animals more sexually precocious, but more research is needed. A lower fat content is better for reproduction in cows.

These studies showed that the strong phenotypic correlation of 0.66 ± 0.02 between CWT and EMA, which was the strongest correlation among all pairs of reproductive and carcass traits, followed by the weak positive correlations between EMA and MS, AFC, and NAIPC, between CWT and BF, and between CWT and MS which were 0.33, 0.30, 0.29, and 0.29, respectively. In the present study, the phenotypic correlation was within the range of estimates made previously for Korean Hanwoo [93], Angus [78,79], Brangus [82,83], Angus-Brahman [84], Canadian crossbred cattle [85], and Nellore cattle [86].

This study found low to moderate genetic correlations between the attribute of reproductive and carcass weight CWT, which may explain why choosing a heavier body weight may result in longer CI, AFC, GL, and increased NAIPC. The genotype-environment interaction is a more likely cause of the phenotypic manifestation of these traits because of the near-zero phenotypic association and the marginally favorable genetic correlation between CWT, AFC, and NAIPC. After producing a reference population for carcass and reproductive traits, the application of genomic selection would be preferable to address the limitations of this study. These findings on variance components, heritability h2 estimates, GEBV accuracy, and correlation coefficients for reproductive and carcass traits offer important insights into the genetic merits of Hanwoo cows. They may benefit future research on them and their incorporation into the Hanwoo National Evaluation for genomic selection.

Competing interests

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding sources

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through the Livestock Industrialization Technology Development Program (or Project), funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (321082-3).

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

Upon a reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization: Haque MA, Iqbal A, Kim JJ.

Data curation: Lee YM, Ha JJ, Kim JJ.

Formal analysis: Haque MA.

Methodology: Haque MA, Kim JJ.

Software: Haque MA.

Validation: Ha JJ, Kim JJ.

Investigation: Haque MA, Iqbal A, Alam MZ.

Writing - original draft: Haque MA.

Writing - review & editing: Haque MA, Iqbal A, Alam MZ, Lee YM, Ha JJ, Kim JJ.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not require IRB/IACUC approval because there are no human and animal participants.

REFERENCES

1.

Lee SH, Park BH, Sharma A, Dang CG, Lee SS, Choi TJ, et al. Hanwoo cattle: origin, domestication, breeding strategies and genomic selection. J Anim Sci Technol. 2014; 56:2

2.

Jo C, Cho SH, Chang J, Nam KC. Keys to production and processing of Hanwoo beef: a perspective of tradition and science. Anim Front. 2012; 2:32-8

3.

Dekkers JCM. Estimation of economic values for dairy cattle breeding goals: bias due to sub-optimal management policies. Livest Prod Sci. 1991; 29:131-49

4.

Boichard D. Estimation of the economic value of conception rate in dairy cattle. Livest Prod Sci. 1990; 24:187-204

5.

Cammack KM, Thomas MG, Enns RM. Reproductive traits and their heritabilities in beef cattle. Prof Anim Sci. 2009; 25:517-28

6.

Nwogwugwu CP, Kim Y, Ugbo EH, Lee JH, Lee SH. Estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends for growth traits of Doyogena sheep in Southern Ethiopia. J Anim Breed Genom. 2020; 4:19-31

7.

Zhou J, Liu L, Chen CJ, Zhang M, Lu X, Zhang Z, et al. Genome-wide association study of milk and reproductive traits in dual-purpose Xinjiang Brown cattle. BMC Genomics. 2019; 20:827

8.

Beneberu N, Alemayehu K, Mebratie W, Getahun K, Wodajo F, Tesema Z. Genetic and phenotypic correlations for reproductive and milk production traits of pure Jersey dairy cows at Adea-Berga, central highland of Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2021; 33:1-7

9.

van Rheenen W, Peyrot WJ, Schork AJ, Lee SH, Wray NR. Genetic correlations of polygenic disease traits: from theory to practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2019; 20:567-81

10.

Bourdon RM. Understanding animal breeding. 2nd ed Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2000

11.

Hill WG. Genetic correlation.In: In: Maloy S, Hughes K, editors.editors Brenner’s encyclopedia of genetics. 2nd ed San Diego: Academic Press. 2013; p p. 237-9

12.

Goshu G, Singh H, Petersson KJ, Lundeheim H. Heritability and correlation among first lactation traits in Holstein Friesian cows at Holeta Bull Dam Station, Ethiopia. Int J Livest Prod. 2014; 5:47-53

13.

Abegaz S, Negussie E, Duguma G, Rege JEO. Genetic parameter estimates for growth traits in Horro sheep. J Anim Breed Genet. 2002; 119:35-45

14.

Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007; 81:559-75

15.

Browning BL, Tian X, Zhou Y, Browning SR. Fast two-stage phasing of large-scale sequence data. Am J Hum Genet. 2021; 108:1880-90

16.

Lee SH, van der Werf JHJ. MTG2: an efficient algorithm for multivariate linear mixed model analysis based on genomic information. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32:1420-2

17.

VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008; 91:4414-23

18.

Henderson CR. Selection index and expected genetic advance. In: In: Hanson WD, Robinson HF, editors. editors Statisitical genetics and plant breeding. Washington, DCNational Academy of Science, National Research Council 1963; p:141-63

19.

Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2011; 88:76-82

20.

Lopez BI, Lee SH, Park JE, Shin DH, Oh JD, de las Heras-Saldana S, et al. Weighted genomic best linear unbiased prediction for carcass traits in Hanwoo cattle. Genes. 2019; 10:1019

21.

Wang H, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Muir WM. Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. Genet Res. 2012; 94:73-83

22.

Strandén I, Garrick DJ. Technical note: derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. J Dairy Sci. 2009; 92:2971-5

23.

Zhang Z, Liu J, Ding X, Bijma P, de Koning DJ, Zhang Q. Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific marker-derived relationship matrix. PLOS ONE. 2010; 5e12648

24.

Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Masuda Y, Aguilar I, Legarra A, et al. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. 2022

25.

Aguilar I, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Legarra A, Wang H. PREGSF90 – POSTGSF90: computational tools for the implementation of single-step genomic selection and genome-wide association with ungenotyped individuals in BLUPF90 programs. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 2014 Vancouver, BC.

26.

Clark SA, Hickey JM, Daetwyler HD, van der Werf JHJ. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes. Genet Sel Evol. 2012; 44:4

27.

Rostamzadeh Mahdabi E, Tian R, Li Y, Wang X, Zhao M, Li H, et al. Genomic heritability and correlation between carcass traits in Japanese Black cattle evaluated under different ceilings of relatedness among individuals. Front Genet. 2023; 14:1053291

28.

Brzáková M, Čítek J, Svitáková A, Veselá Z, Vostrý L. Genetic parameters for age at first calving and first calving interval of beef cattle. Animals. 2020; 10:2122

29.

Brzáková M, Zavadilová L, Přibyl J, Pešek P, Kašná E, Kranjčevičová A. Estimation of genetic parameters for female fertility traits in the Czech Holstein population. Czech J Anim Sci. 2019; 64:199-206

30.

Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh N. Genetic parameters and trends for calving interval in the first three lactations of Iranian Holsteins. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011; 43:1111-5

31.

Setiaji A, Oikawa T. Genetic parameters of reproductive traits from artificial insemination records of Japanese Black cows. Livest Sci. 2019; 229:85-9

32.

Yagüe G, Goyache F, Becerra J, Moreno C, Sánchez L, Altarriba J. Bayesian estimates of genetic parameters for pre-conception traits, gestation length and calving interval in beef cattle. Anim Reprod Sci. 2009; 114:72-80

33.

Kašná E, Zavadilová L, Krupa E, Krupová Z, Kranjčevičová A. Evaluation of gestation length in Czech Holstein cattle. Czech J Anim Sci. 2020; 65:473-81

34.

Lopez BI, Son JH, Seo K, Lim D. Estimation of genetic parameters for reproductive traits in Hanwoo (Korean cattle). Animals. 2019; 9:715

35.

Alam M, Lee SH, Lee DH, Cho C, Park MN. Genetic analysis of major carcass traits of Korean Hanwoo males raised for thirty months. Animals. 2021; 11:1792

36.

Naserkheil M, Bahrami A, Lee D, Mehrban H. Integrating single-step GWAS and bipartite networks reconstruction provides novel insights into yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle. Animals. 2020; 10:1836

37.

Oyama K, Katsuta T, Anada K, Mukai F. Heritability and repeatability estimates for reproductive traits of Japanese black cows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2002; 15:1680-5

38.

Vinothraj S, Subramaniyan A, Venkataramanan R, Joseph C, Sivaselvam SN. Genetic evaluation of reproduction performance of Jersey × Red Sindhi crossbred cows. Vet World. 2016; 9:1012-7

39.

Schmidt PI, Campos GS, Roso VM, Souza FRP, Boligon AA. Genetic analysis of female reproductive efficiency, scrotal circumference and growth traits in Nelore cattle. Theriogenology. 2019; 128:47-53

40.

Grossi DdA, Berton MP, Buzanskas ME, Chud TCS, Grupioni NV, de Paz CC, et al. Genetic analysis on accumulated productivity and calving intervals in Nelore cattle. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2016; 48:207-10

41.

Elzo MA, Mateescu RG, Rae DO, Carr CC, Scheffler TL, Scheffler JM, et al. Genomic-polygenic EBV for reproduction, ultrasound-carcass, and tenderness traits in the Florida multibreed Brahman-Angus population. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 2018 Rome, Italy.

42.

Alejandro MA, Martínez SR, Cerón-Muñoz M. Parámetros genéticos para crecimiento y reproducción en ganado Simmental mediante parentesco por pedigrí y genómico. Revista MVZ Córdoba. 2020; 25e1520

43.

Naserkheil M, Lee D, Chung K, Park MN, Mehrban H. Estimation of genetic correlations of primal cut yields with carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle. Animals. 2021; 11:3102

44.

Srivastava S, Lopez BI, Kumar H, Jang M, Chai HH, Park W, et al. Prediction of Hanwoo cattle phenotypes from genotypes using machine learning methods. Animals. 2021; 11:2066

45.

Lopez BIM, An N, Srikanth K, Lee S, Oh JD, Shin DH, et al. Genomic prediction based on SNP functional annotation using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Korean Hanwoo cattle. Front Genet. 2021; 11:603822

46.

Houle D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1992; 130:195-204

47.

Mehrban H, Naserkheil M, Lee DH, Cho C, Choi T, Park M, et al. Genomic prediction using alternative strategies of weighted single-step genomic BLUP for yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle. Genes. 2021; 12:266

48.

Guarini AR, Lourenco DAL, Brito LF, Sargolzaei M, Baes CF, Miglior F, et al. Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2018; 101:8076-86

49.

Alves AAC, Espigolan R, Bresolin T, Costa RM, Fernandes GA, Ventura RV, et al. Genome-enabled prediction of reproductive traits in Nellore cattle using parametric models and machine learning methods. Anim Genet. 2021; 52:32-46

50.

Laodim T, Elzo MA, Koonawootrittriron S, Suwanasopee T, Jattawa D. Genomic-polygenic and polygenic predictions for milk yield, fat yield, and age at first calving in Thai multibreed dairy population using genic and functional sets of genotypes. Livest Sci. 2019; 219:17-24

51.

Mota RR, Silva FFE, Guimarães SEF, Hayes B, Fortes MRS, Kelly MJ, et al. Benchmarking Bayesian genome enabled-prediction models for age at first calving in Nellore cows. Livest Sci. 2018; 211:75-9

52.

Costa RB, Irano N, Diaz IDPS, Takada L, Hermisdorff IDC, Carvalheiro R, et al. Prediction of genomic breeding values for reproductive traits in Nellore heifers. Theriogenology. 2019; 125:12-7

53.

Boddhireddy P, Prayaga K, Barros P, Lôbo R, DeNise S. Genomic predictions of economically important traits in Nelore cattle of Brazil. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 2014 Vancouver, BC.

54.

Chen L, Vinsky M, Li C. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for carcass merit traits in Angus and Charolais beef cattle. Anim Genet. 2015; 46:55-9

55.

Fernandes GA, Rosa GJM, Valente BD, Carvalheiro R, Baldi F, Garcia DA, et al. Genomic prediction of breeding values for carcass traits in Nellore cattle. Genet Sel Evol. 2016; 48:7

56.

Gordo DGM, Espigolan R, Tonussi RL, Júnior GAF, Bresolin T, Magalhães AFB, et al. Genetic parameter estimates for carcass traits and visual scores including or not genomic information. J Anim Sci. 2016; 94:1821-6

57.

Mehrban H, Lee DH, Naserkheil M, Moradi MH, Ibáñez-Escriche N. Comparison of conventional BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP evaluations for yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle using single trait and multi-trait models. PLOS ONE. 2019; 14e0223352

58.

Kim EH, Kang HC, Sun DW, Myung CH, Kim JY, Lee DH, et al. Estimation of breeding value and accuracy using pedigree and genotype of Hanwoo cows (Korean cattle). J Anim Breed Genet. 2022; 139:281-91

59.

Dahliani ER, Rahmatan H, Djufri . The correlation between students’ interest and learning outcomes in biology. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020; 1460:012072

60.

Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. 1996

61.

Shin S, Lee J, Do C. Genetic relationship of age at first calving with conformation traits and calving interval in Hanwoo cows. J Anim Sci Technol. 2021; 63:740-50

62.

Bourdon RM, Brinks JS. Genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships among gestation length, birth weight, growth traits and age at first calving in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 1982; 55:543-53

63.

MacGregor RG, Casey NH. Evaluation of calving interval and calving date as measures of reproductive performance in a beef herd. Livest Prod Sci. 1999; 57:181-91

64.

Gutiérrez JP, Alvarez I, Fernández I, Royo LJ, Dı́ez J, Goyache F. Genetic relationships between calving date, calving interval, age at first calving and type traits in beef cattle. Livest Prod Sci. 2002; 78:215-22

65.

Lôbo RNB. Genetic parameters for reproductive traits of zebu cows in the semi-arid region of Brazil. Livest Prod Sci. 1998; 55:245-8

66.

Berry DP, Evans RD. Genetics of reproductive performance in seasonal calving beef cows and its association with performance traits. J Anim Sci. 2014; 92:1412-22

67.

Cavani L, Garcia DA, Carreño LOD, Ono RK, Pires MP, Farah MM, et al. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproductive traits in Brahman cattle breed. J Anim Sci. 2015; 93:3287-91

68.

Mercadante MEZ, Lôbo RB, Nunes de Oliveira H. Estimativas de (Co)variâncias entre características de reprodução e de crescimento em fêmeas de um rebanho Nelore. Rev Bras Zootec. 2000; 29:997-1004

69.

Ulhôa Magnabosco C, Brito Lopes F, de Magalhaes Rosa GJ, Sainz RD. Bayesian estimates of genetic parameters for reproductive traits in Nellore cows raised on pasture in tropical regions. Rev Colomb Cienc Pecu. 2016; 29:119-29

70.

Oyama K, Katsuta T, Anada K, Mukai F. Genetic parameters for reproductive performance of breeding cows and carcass traits of fattening animals in Japanese Black (Wagyu) cattle. Anim Sci. 2004; 78:195-201

71.

Bekele A, Wuletaw Z, Haile A, Gizaw S, Mekuriaw G. Genetic parameters for reproduction traits and correlation with pre weaning growth traits of Fogera cattle at Metekel ranch, north west Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2017; 29:152

72.

Setiaji A, Oikawa T. Genetics of heifer reproductive traits in Japanese Black cattle. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020; 33:197-202

73.

Park MN, Alam M, Kim S, Park B, Lee SH, Lee SS. Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020; 33:1544-57

74.

Choi TJ, Alam M, Cho CI, Lee JG, Park B, Kim S, et al. Genetic parameters for yearling weight, carcass traits, and primal-cut yields of Hanwoo cattle. J Anim Sci. 2015; 93:1511-21

75.

Baik DH, Hoque MA, Choe HS. Estimation of genetic and environmental parameters of carcass traits in Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) populations. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2002; 15:1523-6

76.

Roh SH, Kim CY, Won YS, Park CJ, Lee SS, Lee JG. Studies on genetic parameter estimation and sire selection to ultrasound measurement traits of Hanwoo. J Anim Sci Technol. 2010; 52:1-8

77.

Bhuiyan MSA, Kim HJ, Lee DH, Lee SH, Cho SH, Yang BS, et al. Genetic parameters of carcass and meat quality traits in different muscles (longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus) of Hanwoo (Korean cattle). J Anim Sci. 2017; 95:3359-69

78.

Kemp DJ, Herring WO, Kaiser CJ. Genetic and environmental parameters for steer ultrasound and carcass traits. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80:1489-96

79.

Reverter A, Johnston DJ, Graser HU, Wolcott ML, Upton WH. Genetic analyses of live-animal ultrasound and abattoir carcass traits in Australian Angus and Hereford cattle. J Anim Sci. 2000; 78:1786-95

80.

MacNeil MD, Northcutt SL. National cattle evaluation system for combined analysis of carcass characteristics and indicator traits recorded by using ultrasound in Angus cattle. J Anim Sci. 2008; 86:2518-24

81.

Wilson DE, Willham RL, Northcutt SL, Rouse GH. Genetic parameters for carcass traits estimated from Angus field records. J Anim Sci. 1993; 71:2365-70

82.

Moser DW, Bertrand JK, Misztal I, Kriese LA, Benyshek LL. Genetic parameter estimates for carcass and yearling ultrasound measurements in Brangus cattle. J Anim Sci. 1998; 76:2542-8

83.

Stelzleni AM, Perkins TL, Brown AH, Pohlman FW, Johnson ZB, Sandelin BA. Genetic parameter estimates of yearling live animal ultrasonic measurements in Brangus cattle. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80:3150-3

84.

Elzo MA, Mateescu RG, Johnson DD, Scheffler TL, Scheffler JM, Carr C, et al. Genomic-polygenic and polygenic predictions for nine ultrasound and carcass traits in Angus-Brahman multibreed cattle using three sets of genotypes. Livest Sci. 2017; 202:58-66

85.

Miar Y, Plastow GS, Bruce HL, Moore SS, Durunna ON, Nkrumah JD, et al. Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters for ultrasound and carcass merit traits in crossbred beef cattle. Can J Anim Sci. 2014; 94:273-80

86.

Yokoo MJ, Lôbo RB, Magnabosco CU, Rosa GJM, Forni S, Sainz RD, et al. Genetic correlation of traits measured by ultrasound at yearling and 18 months of age in Nellore beef cattle. Livest Sci. 2015; 180:34-40

87.

Su H, Golden B, Hyde L, Sanders S, Garrick D. Genetic parameters for carcass and ultrasound traits in Hereford and admixed Simmental beef cattle: accuracy of evaluating carcass traits. J Anim Sci. 2017; 95:4718-27

88.

Gordo DGM, Baldi F, Lôbo RB, Koury Filho W, Sainz RD, Albuquerque LG. Genetic association between body composition measured by ultrasound and visual scores in Brazilian Nelore cattle. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90:4223-9

89.

Riley DG, Chase CC, Hammond AC, West RL, Johnson DD, Olson TA, et al. Estimated genetic parameters for carcass traits of Brahman cattle. J Anim Sci. 2002; 80:955-62

90.

Smith T, Domingue JD, Paschal JC, Franke DE, Bidner TD, Whipple G. Genetic parameters for growth and carcass traits of Brahman steers. J Anim Sci. 2007; 85:1377-84

91.

Devitt CJB, Wilton JW. Genetic correlation estimates between ultrasound measurements on yearling bulls and carcass measurements on finished steers. J Anim Sci. 2001; 79:2790-7

92.

Davoli R, Catillo G, Serra A, Zappaterra M, Zambonelli P, Zilio DM, et al. Genetic parameters of backfat fatty acids and carcass traits in Large White pigs. Animal. 2019; 13:924-32

93.

Naserkheil M, Lee DH, Kong HS, Seong J, Mehrban H. Estimation of genetic parameters and correlation between yearling ultrasound measurements and carcass traits in Hanwoo cattle. Animals. 2021; 11:1425

94.

Hwang JM, Cheong JK, Kim SS, Jung BH, Koh MJ, Kim HC, et al. Genetic analysis of ultrasound and carcass measurement traits in a regional hanwoo steer population. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014; 27:457-63

95.

MacNeil MD, Cundiff LV, Dinkel CA, Koch RM. Genetics correlations among sex-limited traits in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 1984; 58:1171-80

96.

Caetano SL, Savegnago RP, Boligon AA, Ramos SB, Chud TCS, Lôbo RB, et al. Estimates of genetic parameters for carcass, growth and reproductive traits in Nellore cattle. Livest Sci. 2013; 155:1-7

97.

Guidolin DGF, Grupioni NV, Chud TCS, Urbinati I, Lôbo RB, Bezerra LAF, et al. Genetic association for growth, reproductive and carcass traits in guzerá beef catle. In: Proceedings of 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. 2010 Leipzig, Germany.