Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:28:24.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in Hereford cattle 1. Selection pressure applied and direct responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. A. Mrode ,
C. Smith  and
R. Thompson
R. A. Mrode
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
C. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

Selection of bulls for rate and efficiency of lean gain was studied in a herd of Hereford cattle. There were two selection lines, one selected for lean growth rate (LGR) from birth to 400 days and the other for lean food conversion ratio (LFCR) from 200 to 400 days of age, for a period of 8 years. A control line bred by frozen semen from foundation bulls was also maintained. Generation interval was about 2·4 years and average male selection differentials, per generation were 1·2 and — 1·1 phenotypic standard deviation units for LGR and LFCR respectively.

Genetic parameters and responses to selection were estimated from the deviation of the selected lines from a control line and by restricted maximum likelihood (REML) techniques on the same material. Realized heritabilities were 0·40 (s.e. 0·12) for LGR and 0·40 (s.e. 0·13) for LFCR using the control line. Corresponding estimates from REML were 0·42 (s.e. 0·10) and 0·37 (s.e. 0·14). The estimate of the genetic correlation between LGR and LFCR was about — 0·69 (s.e. 0·12) using REML.

The estimates of direct annual genetic change using deviations from the control were 3·6 (s.e. 1·3) g/day for LGR and — 0·14 (s.e. 0·07) kg food per kg lean gain for LFCR. Corrsponding estimates from REML were similar but more precisely estimated. The correlated responses for LFCR in the LGR line was higher than the direct response for LFCR.

Keywords

beef cattlebody lean massselection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 23 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

Aaron, D. K., Frahm, R. R. and Buchanan, D. S. 1986. Direct and correlated responses to selection for increased weaning or yearling weight in Angus cattle. I. Measurement of selection applied. Journal of Animal Science 62: 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, J. S., Clark, R. T. and Rice, F. J. 1961. Estimation of genetic trends in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 20: 903 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Buchanan, D. S., Nielsen, M. K., Koch, R. M. and Cundiff, L. V. 1982. Selection for growth and muscling score in beef cattle. 1. Selection applied. Journal of Animal Science 55: 516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. 1976. The effects of selection on genetic variability: a simulation study. Genetical Research 28: 101–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevraux, D. J. and Bailey, C. M. 1977. Selection for postweaning growth rate in a closed line of Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 44: 352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1982. Effect of genetic changes in components of growth on biological and economic efficiency of meat production. Proceedings 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 5, pp. 252–267.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. V. and Winstanley, M. 1986. Meeting the demand for leaner beef. In Science and Quality Beef Production (ed. Hardcastle, J. E. Y.), pp. 24–25. Agricultural and Food Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Animal Production 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Frahm, M. H., Nicols, C. G. and Buchanan, D. S. 1985. Selection for increased weaning or yearling weight in Hereford cattle. 1. Measurement of selection applied. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's Guide for LSML76.Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1971. Design and efficiency of selection experiments for estimating genetic parameters. Biometrics 27: 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. 1972. Estimation of realised heritabilities from selection experiments. II. Selection in one direction. Biometrics 28: 767–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, J. W. 1986. Cumulative selection differentials and realized heritabilities with overlapping generations. Animal Production 42: 411–415.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Solly, K. J. 1988. Trends in carcass traits in Great Britain (cattle and sheep). Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 459–470.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A. 1988a. Genetic response to selection for rate and efficiency of lean gain in beef cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A. 1988b. Selection experiments in beef cattle. Part 2. A review of responses and correlated responses. Animal Breeding Abstracts 56: 155–167Google 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
Pattie, W. A. 1965. Selection for weaning weight in Merino sheep. 1. Direct response to selection. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 5: 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M. F., Henderson, C. R. and Quaas, R. C. 1979. Effect of selection on variances and covariances of simulated first and second lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 62: 996–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholtz, M. M. and Roux, C. Z. 1984. Correlated responses to selection for growth, size and efficiency. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Pretoria, South Africa,pp. 433–443.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1983. Selection of beef cattle for efficiency of lean growth. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1984. Rates of genetic change in farm livestock. Research and Development in Agriculture 1: 79–85.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1988. Checking rates of genetic response with new reproductive techniques.Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Paris, Vol. 1,pp. 159–162.Google Scholar
Sorensen, D. A. and Kennedy, B. W. 1984. Estimation of response to selection using least-squares and mixed model methodology. Journal of Animal Science 58: 1097–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. and Meyer, K. 1986. A review of theoretical aspects in the estimation of breeding values for multi-trait selection. Livestock Production Science 15: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. N. and Young, S. S. Y. 1969. Quantitative Genetics in Sheep Breeding. MacMillan, Melbourne.Google Scholar