Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:08:37.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. Roughsedge ,
P. R. Amer ,
R. Thompson  and
G. Simm
T. Roughsedge*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
P. R. Amer
Affiliation:
Abacus Biotech Limited, PO Box 5585, Dunedin, New Zealand
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Institute of Arable Crop Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK and Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
† Email: Tim.Roughsedge@sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

A maternal breeding goal for the UK beef industry is described and economic selection indexes are developed to assist in the selection of animals for the goal. The breeding objective is made up of general maternal ability traits, cow size, calving and carcass traits. The general maternal ability traits include calving interval, age at first calving, lifespan, maternal weaning weight and maternal calving difficulty. The calculations of economic values for the traits are outlined and discounted genetic expression coefficients are presented. Three selection indexes are illustrated. The first provides a general dualpurpose index for the selection of bulls to produce replacement heifers in most situations. The second, the hardy breed index, is designed to allow selection for improved maternal performance in extensive and hardy environments. The third, the fertile herd index, allows producers who do not have herd fertility problems to place more selection emphasis on objectives other than fertility. A sample of data from the Limousin breed was used to calculate estimated breeding values (EBVs) which were used to investigate response to the three indexes when the top 20% of sires were selected from either sires with 50 or more grand-maternal progeny or bulls with no recorded progeny. Approximately two thirds of the economic response seen in the selection of heavily used bulls was observed in bulls with no progeny for the hardy and dual-purpose indexes. Bulls were also selected using the existing UK terminal sire index and the resulting bulls assessed in the dual-purpose maternal index. There was found to be a negative economic response to the maternal aspect of the index, though a positive response was seen in the carcass objective. The indexes are presented as the sum of four subindexes emphasizing the contribution of maternal ability, cow size, calving and carcass, respectively to the total index. This further assists commercial producers in selection decisions.

Keywords

beef cattlematernal effectsselection criteriaselection index
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , October 2005 , pp. 221 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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, P. and Emmans, G. C. 1998. Predicting changes in food energy requirements due to genetic changes in growth and body composition of growing ruminants. Animal Science 66: 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, P. R. 1999. Economic accounting of numbers of expressions and delays in sheep genetic improvement. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, P. R., Crump, R. and Simm, G. 1998. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Animal Science 67: 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, P. R., Emmans, G. C. and Simm, G. 1997. Economic values for carcase traits in UK commercial beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 51: 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, P. R., Lowman, B. G. and Simm, G. 1996. Economic values for reproduction traits in beef suckler herds based on a calving distribution model. Livestock Production Science 46: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, P. R., Simm, G., Keane, M. G., Diskin, M. G. and Wickham, B. W. 2001. Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland. Livestock Production Science 67: 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwick, S. A., Henzel, A. L. and Grase, H. U. 1994. Developments in the construction and use of selection indices for genetic evaluation of beef cattle in Australia. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 18, pp. 227–230.Google Scholar
Barwick, S. A. and Yeates, A. P. 1997. Using BREEDOBJECT in industry to help breed more pro. table cattle. Proceedings of the 12th Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics conference, Dubbo, April, pp. 769–773.Google Scholar
Crump, R. E., Simm, G., Nicholson, D., Findlay, R. H., Bryan, J. G. E. and Thompson, R. 1997. Results of multivariate individual animal model genetic evaluations of British pedigree beef cattle. Animal Science 65: 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1994. Effective energy: a concept of energy utilization applied across species. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 801–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmans, G. C. 1988. Genetic components of potential and actual growth. In Animal breeding opportunities, British Society of Animal Production, occasional publication no. 12, pp. 153–181.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Gogel, B. J., Cullis, B. R., Welham, S. J. and Thompson, R. 2002. ASReml user guide, release 1·0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M., Bowman, P. J. and Goddard, M. E. 2003. Genetic and environmental relationship among calving interval, survival, persistency of milk yield and somatic cell count in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 80: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeil, M. D., Newman, S., Enns, R. M. and Stewart-Smith, J. 1994. Relative economic values for Canadian beef production using specialised sire and dam lines. Candian Journal of Animal Science 74: 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, S., Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L. and Nicoll, G. B. 1992. Genetic improvement of beef cattle in New Zeland: breeding objectives. Livestock Production Science 32: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitter, G., Graser, H. U. and Barwick, S. A. 1994. Cost-benefit analysis of increased intensity of recording in the Australian national beef recording scheme. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 18, pp. 205–208.Google Scholar
Olori, V. E., Pool, M. H., Calus, M. P. L., Cromie, A. R. and Veerkamp, R. F. 2003. Joint evaluation of survival and fertility in dairy cattle with a linear model. Interbull Bulletin 30: 20–24.Google Scholar
Phocas, F., Bloch, C., Chapelle, P., Bécherel, F., Renand, G. and Ménissier, F. 1998. Developing a breeding objective for a French purebred beef cattle selection programme. Livestock Production Science 57: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T., Amer, P. R., Thompson, R. and Simm, G. 2005. Genetic parameters for a maternal breeding goal in beef production. Journal of Animal Science In press.Google ScholarPubMed
Roughsedge, T., Brotherstone, S. and Visscher, P. M. 1999. Quantifying genetic contributions to a dairy cattle population using pedigree analysis. Livestock Production Science 60: 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T., Lowman, B., Amer, P. R. and Simm, G. 2003. Impacts of alternative replacement breeding systems on biological and economic performance in beef suckler production using a herd level bio-economic model. Animal Science 77: 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Agricultural College. 2001. Farm management handbook 2001/2002. SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar