Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:58:57.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between central performance test for growth in Hereford bulls and growth and carcass traits of progeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. L. Baker ,
B. W. Wickham  and
C. A. Morris
R. L. Baker
Affiliation:
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Research Division, Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
B. W. Wickham
Affiliation:
Farm Production Division, New Zealand Dairy Board, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
C. A. Morris
Affiliation:
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Research Division, Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

Four central performance tests of growth in Hereford bulls from about 10 to 19 months of age on pasture were conducted in New Zealand. From the 100 bulls performance tested 63 were representatively sampled, including bulls with high and low performance test rankings, and progeny tested in dairy herds. Crossbred progeny were purchased from the dairy herds at 3 to 4 months of age, assembled in one location and reared together on pasture for 14 to 15 months prior to slaughter. Regressions of progeny growth and carcass traits on a number of different performance traits for growth of their sires were in almost all cases not statistically significant. The effective heritability, from offspring-sire regression, was 0·07 (s.e. 0·05) for final live weight and 009 (s.e. 0·06) for post weaning gain from about 200 to 550 days of age. It is concluded that central performance tests, as presently conducted in New Zealand, are of limited value for ranking breeding values of bulls for growth. Possible reasons for these results are discussed. It is suggested that pre-test environmental effects and age at the start of the central test are critical factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 371 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, B. B., Baerdemaeker, A. De, Bittante, G., Bonaiti, B., Colleau, J. J., Fimland, E., Jansen, J., Lewis, W. H. E., Politiek, R. D., Seeland, G., Teehan, T. J. and Werkmeister, F. 1981. Performance testing of bulls in AI: Report of a working group of the commission on cattle production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 8: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Averdunk, G., Alps, H., Gottschalk, A. and Fusseder, J. 1980. Relationship between performance test traits of the sire and fattening and carcass traits of his progeny. Proc. 31st A. Meet. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Munich, Paper C3.6.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H. and Beatson, P. R. 1975. Progeny testing Angus and Hereford bulls for growth performance. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 35: 103–111.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Wickham, B. W. and Morris, C. A. 1982. The accuracy of central bull performance tests in New Zealand as evaluated by subsequent progeny testing. Proc. 2nd Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 8, pp. 300–304.Google Scholar
Bateman, N. 1974. Growth in mice after selection on maize-milk diets. Anim. Prod. 19: 233–248.Google Scholar
Carter, A. H. 1971. Effectiveness of growth performance selection in cattle. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 31: 151–163.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Long, C. R. 1975. Genetic variation among and within herds of Angus and Hereford cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 1270–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, D. C. and Morris, C. A. 1978. A review of central performance testing of beef bulls and of recent research in New Zealand. Livest. Prod. Sci. 5: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Roo, G. and Fimland, E. A. 1983. A genetic analysis of performance and progeny test data for young bulls of Norwegian red cattle and various Friesian crosses. Livest. Prod. Sci. 10: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1962. Implications of genetic-environmental interaction in animal breeding. Anim. Prod. 4: 47–63.Google Scholar
Dunn, R. J., Magee, W. T., Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1970. Genetic parameters in straightbred and crossbred beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 31: 656–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86: 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genet. Res. 1: 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C. R. 1953. Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9: 226–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, C. M. and Carter, R. C. 1958. Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters in beef cattle. I. Heritability of growth rate estimated from response to sire selection. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 675–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1982. Critical analysis of selection methods and experiments in beef cattle and consequences upon selection programs applied. Proc. 2nd Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 514–526.Google Scholar
Roger, M., Jilek, A. F., Burns, W. C. and Crockett, J. R. 1975. Sire effects for specific combining ability in purebred and crossbred cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 40: 230–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessells, W. J. and Francis, A. L. 1968. The crossbred progeny test of beef bulls. Expl Husb. 16: 1–12.Google Scholar
Mason, W. E. and Beilharz, R. G. 1970. Performance recording of beef cattle. J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci. 36: 167–181.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. 1981. Herd effects on the growth of beef bulls from different sources tested together under grazing conditions. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 24: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okantah, S. A. and Curran, M. K. 1982. A review on the effects of the environment in the central performance testing of beef cattle. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 18: (2), 39–48.Google Scholar
Sellier, P. 1982. Selecting populations for use in crossbreeding. Proc. 2nd Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 6, pp. 15–49.Google Scholar
Shelton, M., Cartwright, T. C. and Hardy, W. T. 1958. Relationships between performance-tested bulls and the performance of their offspring. Progr. Rep. Tex. agric. Exp. Stn, Cattle Series No. 137.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1983. Selection of beef cattle for efficiency of lean growth. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Steane, D. E. and Jordan, C. 1979. Progeny test results on Hereford bulls weight-recorded on the farm. Anim. Prod. 28: 49–53.Google Scholar
Standal, N. 1977. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. VI. Correlation between breeding values estimated from station test and on-farm-test data. Acta agric. Scand. 27: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, A. K. W. 1982. Effects of intitial age and weight on test daily gains of station-tested bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, B. W. 1977. The relationship between central test station performance and subsequent progeny performance for growth traits of Hereford bulls. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 37: 89–95.Google Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1970. Performance testing for beef: inter-relationships among traits in bulls tested from an early age. Anim. Prod. 12: 451–456.Google Scholar
Woldehawariat, G., Talamantes, M. A., Petty, R. R. Jr and Cartwright, T. C. 1977. A summary of genetic and environmental statistics for growth and conformation characters of young beef cattle. Tech. Bull. Tex. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 103.Google Scholar