Threshold-linear Versus Linear-linear Analysis of Birth Weight and Calving Ease Using an Animal Model: II. Comparison of Models

Several models were evaluated in terms of predictive ability for calving difficulty. Data included birth weight and calving difficulty scores provided by the American Gelbvieh Association from 26,006 calves born to first-parity cows and five simulated populations of 6,200 animals each. Included in the model were fixed age of dam x sex interaction effects, random herd-year-season effects, and random animal direct and maternal effects. Bivariate linear-threshold and linear-linear models for birth weight/calving ease and univariate threshold and linear models for calving ease were applied to the data sets. For each data set and model, one-half of calving ease records were randomly discarded. Predictive ability of the different models was defined with the mean square error (MSE) for the difference between a deleted calving ease score and its prediction obtained from the remaining data. In terms of correlation between simulated and predicted breeding values, the threshold models had a 1% advantage for direct genetic effects and 3% for maternal genetic effects. In simulation, the average MSE was .29 for linear-threshold, .32 for linear-linear, .37 for threshold, and .39 for linear model. For the field data set, the MSE was .31, .33, .39, and .40, respectively. Although the bivariate models for calving ease/birth weight were more accurate than univariate models, the threshold models showed a greater advantage under the bivariate model. For the purpose of genetic evaluation for calving difficulty in beef cattle, the use of the linear-threshold model seems justified. In dairy cattle, the evaluation for calving ease can benefit from recording birth weight.