Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T22:10:57.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Industry benefits from recent genetic progress in sheep and beef populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

P. R. Amer ,
G. J. Nieuwhof ,
G. E. Pollott ,
T. Roughsedge ,
J. Conington  and
G. Simm
P. R. Amer*
Affiliation:
AbacusBio Limited, PO Box 5585, Dunedin, New Zealand SAC Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. J. Nieuwhof
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX, UK
G. E. Pollott
Affiliation:
SAC Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
T. Roughsedge
Affiliation:
SAC Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
J. Conington
Affiliation:
SAC Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. Simm
Affiliation:
SAC Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An analytical model that evaluates the benefits from 10 years of genetic improvement over a 20-year time frame was specified. Estimates of recent genetic trends in recorded traits, industry statistics and published estimates of the economic values of trait changes were used to parameterise the model for the UK sheep and beef industries. Despite rates of genetic change in the relevant performance-recorded breeding populations being substantially less than theoretical predictions, the financial benefits of genetic change were substantial. Over 20 years, the benefits from 10 years of genetic progress at recently achieved rates in recorded hill sheep, sheep crossing sire and sheep terminal sire breeding programmes was estimated to be £5.3, £1.0 and £11.5 million, respectively. If dissemination of genetic material is such that these rates of change are also realised across the entire ram breeding industry, the combined benefits would be £110.8 million. For beef cattle, genetic evaluation systems have been operating within all the major breeds for some years with quite widespread use of performance recording, and so genetic trends within the beef breeds were used as predictors of industry genetic change. Benefits from 10 years of genetic progress at recent rates of change, considering a 20-year time frame, in terminal sire beef breeds are expected to be £4.9 million. Benefits from genetic progress for growth and carcass characters in dual-purpose beef breeds were £18.2 million after subtraction of costs associated with a deterioration in calving traits. These benefits may be further offset by unfavourable associated changes in maternal traits. Additional benefits from identification and use of the best animals available from the breeding sector for commercial matings through performance recording and genetic evaluation could not be quantified. When benefits of genetic improvement were expressed on an annual present value basis and compared with lagged annual investment costs to achieve it, the internal rate of return (IRR) on the combined investment in sheep and beef cattle was 32%. Despite a much higher rate of participation in performance recording, the present value of benefits and the IRR were lower for beef cattle than for sheep. The implications of these results for future national and industry investment in genetic improvement infrastructure were discussed.

Keywords

beef cattlegenetic improvementsheep
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 1 , Issue 10 , November 2007 , pp. 1414 - 1426
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2007

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

Amer, PR, Fox, GC 1992. Estimation of economic weights in genetic improvement using neoclassical production theory: an alternative to rescaling. Animal Production 54, 341–350.Google Scholar
Amer, PR, Crump, R, Simm, G 1998a. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Animal Science 67, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer PR, Mpofu N and Bondoc O 1998b. Definition of breeding objectives for sustainable production systems. In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 11–16 January, 1998, vol. 28, pp. 97–104.Google Scholar
Conington, J, Bishop, SC, Grundy, B, Waterhouse, AW, Simm, G 2001. Multi-trait selection indexes for sustainable UK hill sheep production. Animal Science 73, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conington, J, Bishop, SC, Waterhouse, AW, Simm, G 2004. A bioeconomic approach to derive economic values for pasture-based sheep genetic improvement programs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1290–1304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, JW 1981. Index selection for simultaneous improvement of several characters. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress on Genetics (ed. D Belyaer), pp. 221–228. MIR Moscow, USSR.Google Scholar
Jones, HE, Amer, PR, Lewis, RM, Emmans, GC 2004. Economic values for changes in carcass lean and fat weights at a fixed age for terminal sire breeds of sheep in the UK. Livestock Production Science 89, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap PW 1998. Internationalisation of pig breeding companies. In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 11–16 January, 1998, vol. 26, 143–146.Google Scholar
Lewis, RM, Simm, G, Dingwall, WS, Murphy, SV 1996. Selection for lean growth in terminal sire sheep to produce leaner crossbred progeny. Animal Science 63, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollott, GE, Stone, DG 2006. The breeding structure of the British sheep industry 2003. DEFRA, London.Google Scholar
Preisinger R 1998. Internationalisation of breeding programmes – breeding egg-type chickens for a global market. In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 11–16 January, 1998, vol. 26, pp. 135–142.Google Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Thompson, R, Villanueva, B, Simm, G 2001. Synthesis of direct and maternal genetic components of economically important traits from beef breed-cross evaluations. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2307–2319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughsedge, T, Amer, PR, Thompson, R, Simm, G 2005a. Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production. Animal Science 81, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Amer, PR, Thompson, R, Simm, G 2005b. Genetic parameters for a maternal breeding goal in beef production. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2319–2329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scottish Agricultural College 2001. Farm management handbook 2001/2002. SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Simm, G, Conington, J, Bishop, SC 1994. Opportunities for genetic improvement of sheep and cattle in the hills and uplands. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. TLJ Lawrence, DS Parker and P Rowlinson), pp. 51–66. BSAP occasional publication no. 18. BSAP, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Simm, G, Lewis, RM, Grundy, B, Dingwall, WS 2002. Responses to selection for lean growth in sheep. Animal Science 74, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar