Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:41:09.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic progress and inbreeding for alternative nucleus breeding schemes for beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. Villanueva ,
G. Simm  and
J. A. Woolliams
B. Villanueva
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Alternative closed breeding schemes for beef cattle are analysed using stochastic computer simulation. Multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) schemes are compared with conventional schemes (schemes without MOET) with an equal expected number of progeny born per year. Schemes are compared for genetic gain and inbreeding obtained after 25 years of selection. The trait considered, evaluated in both sexes, has an initial heritability of 0·35. Different population sizes and numbers of sires selected are evaluated. Current realistic parameters for embryo production are assumed in MOET schemes.

After 25 years of selection, and with no control on inbreeding, cumulative genetic gains are about 50% higher in MOET schemes compared with conventional schemes. The benefit from MOET is mostly due to increased selection intensities in females. The rate of inbreeding increases by up to nearly 300% when MOET is used. This maximum percentage increase in inbreeding following the use of MOET can be reduced to about 100% when selection and mating strategies for controlling inbreeding are used. The effect of the number of sires used on the inbreeding obtained is more important than the effect of the size of the herd. In MOET schemes, increasing the number of sires selected by a factor of three, leads to reductions in inbreeding rates of 40%. When schemes of the same size are compared at similar acceptable inbreeding levels, MOET schemes give around 30% higher genetic progress than conventional schemes.

Keywords

beef cattlebreeding programmesinbreedingMOETselection responses
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 231 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bondoc, O. L. and Smith, C. 1993. Optimized testing schemes using nucleus progeny, adult MOET siblings, or juvenile MOET pedigrees in dairy cattle closed populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110: 30–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourdon, R. M. and Brinks, J. S. 1982. Genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships among gestation length, birth weight, growth traits and age at first calving in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 55: 543–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brisbane, J. R. and Gibson, J. P. 1994. Balancing selection response and rate of inbreeding by including genetic relationships in selection decisions. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 19, pp. 135–138.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J. 1990. The NOSCA Simmental MOET project. British Cattle Breeders Club, Winter Conference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gama, L. T. and Smith, C. 1993. The role of inbreeding depression in livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science 36: 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, B., Caballero, A., Santiago, E. and Hill, W. G. 1994. Use of biased parameter values and non-random mating to reduce rates of inbreeding in selection programmes. Animal Production 59: 465–468.Google Scholar
Land, R. B. and Hill, W. G. 1975. The possible use of superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle to increase response to selection. Animal Production 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
Luo, Z. W., Woolliams, J. A. and Simm, G. 1994. An assessment of present and future effectiveness of embryological techniques in ruminants. AgBiotech News and Information 6: 13N–18N.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1991. Expectation and variance of genetic gain in open and closed nucleus and progeny testing schemes. Animal Production 53:133–141.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. 1979. The genetical implications of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer in small dairy herds. Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Harrogate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. 1989. Incorporation of new reproductive technology in genetic improvement programmes. In Evolution and animal breeding (ed. Hill, W. G. and MacKay, F. C.), pp. 203–209. CBA International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F. W. and Smith, C. 1983. Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Animal Production 36: 341–353.Google Scholar
Quaas, R. L. 1976. Computing the diagonal elements and inverse of a large numerator relationship matrix. Biometrics 32: 949–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. 1992. Accelerated development of a British beef breed. Britisli Cattle Breeders Club, Winter Conference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Steane, D. E. and Wray, N. R. 1990. Developments in beef cattle breeding programmes in Europe. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. XV, pp 231–243.Google Scholar
Toro, M. and Perez-Enciso, M. 1990. Optimization of selection response under restricted inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 22: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villanueva, B. and Simm, G. 1994. The use and value of embryo manipulation techniques in animal breeding. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 20, pp. 200–207.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Woolliams, J. A. and Simm, G. 1994. Strategies for controlling rates of inbreeding in MOET nucleus schemes for beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 26: 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villanueva, B., Woolliams, J. A. and Simm, G. 1995. The effect of improved reproductive performance on genetic gain and inbreeding in MOET breeding schemes for beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 27: 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. 1989. Modifications to MOET nucleus breeding schemes to improve rates of genetic progress and decrease rates of inbreeding in dairy cattle. Animal Production 49: 1–14.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A., Luo, Z. W., Villanueva, B., Waddington, D., Broadbent, P., McKelvey, W. A. C. and Robinson, J. J. 1994. Analysis of factors affecting superovulatory responses in ruminants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, N. R. and Goddard, M. E. 1994. Increasing long-term response to selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 26: 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, N. R. and Simm, G. 1990. The use of embryo transfer to accelerate genetic improvement in beef cattle. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. XV, pp. 315–318.Google Scholar