Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:02:55.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding objectives for sheep should be customised depending on variation in pasture growth across years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

G. Rose ,
H. A. Mulder ,
A. N. Thompson ,
J. H. J. van der Werf  and
J. A. M. van Arendonk
G. Rose*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
H. A. Mulder
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. N. Thompson
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. H. J. van der Werf
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia CRC for Sheep Industry Innovation, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. A. M. van Arendonk
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Breeding programmes for livestock require economic weights for traits that reflect the most profitable animal in a given production system, which affect the response in each trait after selection. The profitability of sheep production systems is affected by changes in pasture growth as well as grain, meat and wool prices between seasons and across years. Annual pasture growth varies between regions within Australia’s Mediterranean climate zone from low growth with long periods of drought to high growth with shorter periods of drought. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess whether breeding objectives need to be adapted for regions, depending on how reliable the pasture growth is across years. We modelled farms with Merino sheep bred for wool and meat in 10 regions in Western Australia. Across these 10 regions, mean annual pasture growth decreased, and the CV of annual pasture growth increased as pasture growth for regions became less reliable. We calculated economic values for nine traits, optimising management across 11 years, including variation for pasture growth and wool, meat and grain prices between and within years from 2002 to 2012. These economic values were used to calculate responses to selection for each trait for the 10 regions. We identified two potential breeding objectives, one for regions with low or high reliability and the other for regions with medium reliability of pasture growth. Breeding objectives for high or low pasture growth reliability had more emphasis on live weight traits and number of lambs weaned. Breeding objectives for medium reliability of pasture growth had more emphasis on decreasing fibre diameter. Relative economic weights for fleece weight did not change across the regions. Regions with low or high pasture reliability had similar breeding objectives and response to selection, because the relationship between the economic values and CV of pasture growth were not linear for live weight traits and the number of lambs weaned. This non-linearity was caused by differences in distribution of pasture growth between regions, particularly during summer and autumn, when ewes were pregnant, with increases in energy requirements affecting the value of lambs weaned. In addition, increasing live weight increased the intake capacity of sheep, which meant that more poor quality pasture could be consumed during summer and autumn, which had more value in regions with low and high pasture reliability. We concluded that breeding values for sheep production systems should be customised depending on the reliability of pasture growth between years.

Keywords

pasture growth uncertaintyprice uncertaintysheepbreeding objectiveseconomic values
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1268 - 1277
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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 1994. Economic theory and breeding objectives. In Proceedings of 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 7–12 August, Guelph, ON, Canada, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Austen, EA, Sale, PWG, Clark, SG and Graetz, SG 2002. A survey of farmers’ attitudes, management strategies and use of weather and seasonal climate forecasts for coping with climate variability in the perennial pasture zone of South-East Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42, 173–183.Google Scholar
Brooke, A, Kendrick, D and Meeraus, A 2013. GAMS a user’s guide. GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Brown, DJ, Ball, AJ, Huisman, AE, Swan, AA, Atkins, RD, Graser, HU, Banks, R, Swan, P and Woolaston, RR 2006. Sheep genetics Australia: a national genetic evaluation system for Australian sheep. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13–18 August, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 05–03.Google Scholar
Co-Operative Bulk Handling (CBH) 2012. Co-Operative Bulk Handling, West Perth, WA, Australia.Google Scholar
Chapman, DF, Cullen, BR, Johnson, IR and Beca, D 2009. Interannual variation in pasture growth rate in Australian and New Zealand dairy regions and its consequences for system management. Animal Production Science 49, 1071–1079.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA) 2012. Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, South Perth, WA, Australia.Google Scholar
Doyle, PT, Grimm, M and Thompson, AN 1993. Grazing for pasture and sheep management in the annual pasture zone. In Pasture management – technology for the 21st century (ed. DR Kemp and DL Michalk), pp. 71–90. CSIRO, Armidale, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Dube, B, Mulugeta, SD and Dzama, K 2013. Evaluating breeding objectives for sow productivity and production traits in Large White Pigs. Livestock Science 157, 9–19.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1990. Selction in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetical Research 56, 57–70.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Freer, M, Dove, H and Nolan, JV 2007. Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic., Australia.Google Scholar
Groen, AF 1989. Cattle breeding objectives and production circumstances. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Groen, AF and Korver, S 1989. The economic value of feed intake capacity of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 22, 269–281.Google Scholar
Hazel, LN 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28, 476–490.Google Scholar
Hill, MJ, Donald, GE, Vickery, PJ, Moore, AD and Donnelly, JR 1999. Combining satellite data with a simulation model to describe spatial variability in pasture growth at a farm scale. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39, 285–300.Google Scholar
Hirooka, H and Groen, AF 1999. Effects of production circumstances on expected responses for growth and carcass traits to selection of bulls in Japan. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1135–1143.Google Scholar
Kearney, JF, Schutz, MM, Boettcher, PJ and Weigel, KA 2004. Genotype×environment interaction for grazing versus confinement. I. Production traits. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 501–509.Google Scholar
Kingwell, RS, Pannell, DJ and Robinson, SD 1993. Tactical responses to seasonal conditions in whole farm planning in Western Australia. Agricultural Economics 8, 211–226.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, M, Howitt, RE, Jarvis, LS and Laca, EA 2007. Stochastic rangeland use under capital constraints. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89, 205–817.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J and Veerkamp, RF 2012. Estimation of genetic parameters for test-day records of dairy traits in a seasonal calving system. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5365–5377.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) 2012. Meat prices. Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Moore, AD, Bell, LW and Revell, DK 2009. Feed gaps in mixed-farming systems: insights from the Grain & Graze program. Animal Production Science 49, 736–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, HA, Veerkamp, RF, Ducro, BJ, van Arendonk, JAM and Bijma, P 2006. Optimization of dairy cattle breeding programs for different environments with genotype by environment interaction. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1740–1752.Google Scholar
Olson, KD and Mikesell, CL 1988. The range stocking decision and stochastic forage production. Staff Papers 13540, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Robertson, SM and Wimalasuriya, RK 2004. Limitations to pasture and sheep enterprises and options for improvement in the Victorian Mallee. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 841–849.Google Scholar
Rose, G, Mulder, HA, Thompson, AN, van der Werf, JHJ and van Arendonk, JAM 2014. Varying pasture growth and commodity prices change the value of traits in sheep breeding objectives. Agricultural Systems 131, 94–104.Google Scholar
Rossiter, RC 1966. Ecology of the Mediterranean annual type pasture. Advances in Agronomy 18, 1–56.Google Scholar
Rutten, MJM, Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA and van Arendonk, JAM 2002. SelAction: software to predict selection response and rate of inbreeding in livestock breeding programs. Journal of Heredity 93, 456–458.Google Scholar
Schut, AGT, Gherardi, SG and Wood, DA 2010. Empirical models to quantify the nutritive characteristics of annual pastures in south-west Western Australia. Crop and Pasture Science 61, 32–43.Google Scholar
Sousa Júnior, SC, IDPS, Diaz, dos Santos, KR, de Sousa, JER, JLR, Sarmento and Filho, RM 2012. Genotype by environment interaction in different birth seasons for weight at 240, 365 and 450 days of age in Tabapuã cattle. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 41, 169–2175.Google Scholar
Swan, AA, van der Werf, JHJ and Atkins, KD 2007. Developments in breeding objectives for the Australian sheep industry. In Proceedings of the 17th Congress for the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 23–26 September, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 483–486.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, EH 2004. A resource allocation model describing consequences of artificial selection under metabolic stress. Journal of Animal Science 82, 973–981.Google Scholar
Warn, LK, Geenty, KG and McEachern, S 2006. What is the optimum wool-meat enterprise type? Wool meets meat. In Proceedings of the 2006 Australian Sheep Industry CRC Conference, 22–23 February, Armidale, NSW, Australia, pp. 60–69.Google Scholar
Young, JM, Thompson, AN, Curnow, M and Oldham, CM 2011. Whole-farm profit and the optimum maternal liveweight profile of Merino ewe flocks lambing in winter and spring are influenced by the effects of ewe nutrition on the progeny’s survival and lifetime wool production. Animal Production Science 51, 821–833.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 105 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 425.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S3

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 214.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S4

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 65.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S5

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 110.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S6

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 138.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S7

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 67.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material

Figure S8

Download Rose supplementary material(File)
File 146.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rose supplementary material 1

Rose supplementary material 1

Download Rose supplementary material 1(File)
File 15.1 KB