Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:21:37.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grassland performance of Hereford cattle selected for rate and efficiency of lean gain on a concentrate diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. C. Bishop
S. C. Bishop
Affiliation:
AFRC Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)†, Midlothian EHZ5 9PS
Get access

Abstract

The performance of 273 Hereford calves from lines previously selected for lean growth rate (LGR) or lean food conversion efficiency (LFCR), on a concentrate diet, was evaluated on a grassland diet over a period of 3 years. Both bull and heifer calves were tested, and each year the performance test ran from the 1st week of May (average age of 233 days) until the 1st week of October. Carcass lean content was predicted from body weight and ultrasonic backfat depth, and lean gain was calculated from the product of live-weight gain and predicted carcass lean content. The LGR line was superior to the control (C) line for live-weight gain on test, lean gain on test and lean gain from birth until the end of test. The LFCR line performed similarly to the C line for live-weight gain on test and lean gain on test, but was inferior for total lean gain. For lean gain on test, the proportional differences between the lines were similar to those predicted from parental breeding values for LGR, but they were smaller for total lean gain. The lines did not differ significantly for either fat depth or predicted carcass lean content.

Heritabilities were high for all growth traits, e.g. 0·52 (s.e. 0·17), 0·54 (s.e. 0·17) and 0·59 (s.e. 0·17) for live-weight gain on test, lean gain on test and total lean gain, but lower for fat depth and carcass lean content, 0·25 (s.e. 0·17) and 0·14 (s.e. 0·16), respectively. Genetic correlations with LGR, measured on a concentrate diet, were 0·57 for lean gain on test and 0·56 for total lean gain. If only males were considered, these correlations rose to 0·80 and 0·70, respectively. Coheritabilities between the two environments for lean growth were close to 0·3. It is concluded that although there is some evidence for genotype × environment and genotype × sex interactions, selection for lean growth on a concentrate regimen will still be effective in improving grassland performance.

Keywords

beef cattlebody lean massgenotype environment interactionselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 311 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Bailey, C. B. and Lawson, J. E. 1989. Rate and efficiency of gain in Hereford and Angus bulls from lines selected for rapid growth on high energy and low energy diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69: 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D. R. C., Gilbert, R. P. and Lawson, J. E. 1990. Lack of sire by diet interaction in Hereford and Angus calves fed one of two diets. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. XV, pp. 307–310.Google Scholar
Baker, J. F., Neville, W. E. and Utley, P. R. 1991. Evaluation of genotype-environment interactions of beef bulls tested in feedlot or on pasture. Journal of Animal Science 69: supplement 1, p. 217.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L. and Morris, C. A. 1984. A review of correlated responses to weight selection in beef cattle under different management and climatic conditions. Proceedings of the second world congress in sheep and beef cattle breeding, pp. 236–251.Google Scholar
Bertrand, J. K., Berger, P. J. and Willham, R. L. 1985. Sire × environment interactions in beef cattle weaning weight field data. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1396–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, S. C., Broadbent, J. S., Kay, R. M., Rigby, I. and Fisher, A. V. 1992. The performance of Hereford × Friesian offspring of bulls selected for lean growth rate and lean food conversion efficiency. Animal Production 54: 23–30.Google Scholar
DeNise, S. K., Torabi, M., Ray, D. E. and Rice, R. 1988. Genetic parameter estimates for preweaning traits of beef cattle in a stressful environment. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1899–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. 1981. Changes occurring in cattle as a consequence of selection for growth rate in a stressful environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez-Raya, L., Schaeffer, L. R. and Burnside, E. B. 1992. Estimation of heritability in the base population when only records from later generations are available. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 24: 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, J. D. and Benyshek, L. L. 1988. Effect of pre-weaning nutritional management on yearling weight response in an open-herd selection program. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2508–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, D. D. and Webb, R. P. 1972. Sex × sire interactions in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 34: 885.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1983. GENSTAT a general statistical program. Numerical Algorithms Group Limited.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1985. Maximum likelihood estimation of variance components for a multivariate mixed model with equal design matrices. Biometrics 41: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1989. Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genetique, Selection et Evolution 21: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, R. A., Smith, C. and Thompson, R. 1990a. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle. 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses. Animal Production 51: 23–34.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A., Smith, C. and Thompson, R. 1990b. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle. 2. Evaluation of correlated responses. Animal Production 51: 35–46.Google Scholar
Newman, J. A., Rahnefeld, G. W. and Fredeen, H. T. 1973. Selection intensity and response to selection for yearling weight in beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahnish, O. F., Koger, M., Urick, J. J., Burns, W. C., Butts, W. T. and Richardson, G. V. 1983. Genotype × environment interaction in Hereford cattle: III. Postweaning traits of heifers. Journal of Animal Science 56: 1039–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahnish, O. F., Urick, J. J., Burns, W. C., Butts, W. T., Koger, M. and Blackwell, R. L. 1985. Genotype × environment interaction in Hereford cattle: III. Postweaning traits of bulls. Journal of Animal Science 61: 1146–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pani, S. N., Krause, G. F. and Lasley, J. F. 1977. The importance of sire × sex interactions for preweaning and weaning traits. Journal of Animal Science 45: 1254–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnell, P. F., Barlow, R. and Tier, B. 1988. Realised responses to divergent selection for yearling growth rate in Angus cattle. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production vol. XI, pp. 330–334.Google Scholar
Ponzoni, R. W. and Newman, S. 1989. Developing breeding objectives for Australian beef cattle production. Animal Production 49: 35–47.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Smith, C. and Prescott, J. H. D. 1986. Selection indices to improve the efficiency of lean meat production in cattle. Animal Production 42: 183–193.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Smith, C. and Thompson, R. 1987. The use of product traits such as lean growth rate as selection criteria in animal breeding. Animal Production 45: 307–316.Google Scholar
Tilsch, K., Wollert, J. and Nurnberg, G. 1989. Studies on sire × sex/environment interactions and their effect on response to selection in beef cattle sires progeny-tested for fattening performance and carcass yield. Livestock Production Science 21: 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar