Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T10:21:00.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterisation of terminal sire sheep farm systems, based on a range of environmental factors: a case study in the context of genotype by environment interactions using Charollais lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2014

A. McLaren ,
N. R. Lambe ,
C. Morgan-Davies ,
R. Mrode ,
S. Brotherstone ,
J. Conington ,
J. Morgan-Davies  and
L. Bunger
A. McLaren*
Affiliation:
SRUC, Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, UK
N. R. Lambe
Affiliation:
SRUC, Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, UK
C. Morgan-Davies
Affiliation:
SRUC, Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, UK
R. Mrode
Affiliation:
SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK
S. Brotherstone
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK
J. Conington
Affiliation:
SRUC, Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, UK
J. Morgan-Davies
Affiliation:
SRUC, Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Kirkton Farm, Crianlarich, FK20 8RU, UK
L. Bunger
Affiliation:
SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK
*
†E-mail: Ann.McLaren@sruc.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to define different terminal sire flock environments, based on a range of environmental factors, and then investigate the presence of genotype by environment interactions (G×E) between the environments identified. Data from 79 different terminal sire flocks (40 Texel, 21 Charollais and 18 Suffolk), were analysed using principal coordinate and non-hierarchical cluster analyses, the results of which identified three distinct environmental cluster groups. The type of grazing, climatic conditions and the use of vitamins and mineral supplements were found to be the most important factors in the clustering of flocks. The presence of G×E was then investigated using data from the Charollais flocks only. Performance data were collected for 12 181 lambs, between 1990 and 2010, sired by 515 different sires. Fifty six of the sires had offspring in at least two of the three different cluster groups and pedigree information was available for a total of 161 431 animals. Traits studied were the 21-week old weight (21WT), ultrasound muscle depth (UMD) and log transformed backfat depth (LogUFD). Heritabilities estimated for each cluster, for each trait, ranged from 0.32 to 0.45. Genetic correlations estimated between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 were all found to be significantly lower than unity, indicating the presence of G×E. They were 0.31 (±0.17), 0.68 (±0.14) and 0.18 (±0.21) for 21WT, UMD and LogUFD, respectively. Evidence of sires re-ranking across clusters was also observed. Providing a suitable strategy can be identified, there is potential for the optimisation of future breeding programmes, by taking into account the G×E observed. This would enable farmers to identify and select animals with an increased knowledge as to how they will perform in their specific farm environment thus reducing any unexpected differences in performance.

Keywords

Sheepclusteringgenotype × environment interactions
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , June 2014 , pp. 867 - 876
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Bishop, SC, Conington, J, Waterhouse, A and Simm, G 1996. Genotype×environment interactions for early growth and ultrasonic measurements in hill sheep. Animal Science 62, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, RC, Carmen, GM and McClaugherty, FS 1973. Genotype-environment interaction in sheep. III. Lamb carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 36, 617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, RC, Carmen, GM, McClaugherty, FS and Haydon, PS 1971a. Genotype-environment interaction in sheep. I. Ewe productivity. Journal of Animal Science 33, 556–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, RC, Carmen, GM, McClaugherty, FS and Haydon, PS 1971b. Genotype-environment interaction in sheep. II. Lamb performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 33, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cienfuegos-Rivas, EG, Oltenacu, PA, Blake, RW, Schwager, SJ, Castillo-Juarez, H and Ruiz, FJ 1999. Interaction between milk yield of Holstein cows in Mexico and the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2218–2223.Google Scholar
Dominik, S and Kinghorn, BP 2008. Neglecting genotype×environment interaction results in biased predictions from selection index calculations. Livestock Science 114, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominik, S, Crook, BJ and Kinghorn, BP 1999. Genotype×management interaction on wool production traits and body weight in Western Australian Merino sheep. Proceedings for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 13, 98–101.Google Scholar
Espasandin, AC, Urioste, JI, Naya, H and Alencar, MM 2013. Genotype×production environment interaction for weaning weight in Angus populations of Brazil and Uruguay. Livestock Science 151, 264–270.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1952. The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 86, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, DS and MacKay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Fowler, FJ 2002. Survey research methods. Applied research methods series, vol. 1, 3rd edition. Sage Publications, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Gaspar, P, Escribano, M, Mesias, FJ, Rodriguez de Ledesma, A and Pulido, F 2008. Sheep farms in the Spanish rangelands (dehesas): typologies according to livestock management and economic indicators. Small Ruminant Research 74, 52–63.Google Scholar
Gelasakis, AI, Valergakis, GE, Aresenos, G and Banos, G 2012. Description and typology of intensive Chios dairy sheep farms in Greece. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3070–3079.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Cullis, BR, Welham, SJ and Thompson, R 2001. ASReml reference manual. NSW Agriculture, Orange, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Gower, JC 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, JC 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27, 857–871.Google Scholar
Henderson, CR 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31, 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huquet, B, Leclecr, H and Ducrocq, V 2012a. Characterization of French dairy farm environments from herd-test-day profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4085–4098.Google Scholar
Huquet, B, Leclerc, H and Ducrocq, V 2012b. Modelling and estimation of genotype by environment interactions for production traits in French dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuehn, LA, Lewis, RM and Notter, DR 2008. Connectedness in Targhee and Suffolk flocks participating in the United States National Sheep Improvement Program. Journal of Animal Science 87, 507–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köbrich, C, Rehman, T and Khan, M 2003. Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: two illustrations of the application of multi-variate analyses in Chile and Pakistan. Agricultural Systems 76, 141–157.Google Scholar
Lee, DH and Bertrand, JK 2002. Investigation of genotype×country interactions for growth traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 330–337.Google Scholar
Lewis, RM, Crump, RE, Simm, G and Thompson, R 1999. Assessing connectedness in across-flock genetic evaluations. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, RM, Macfarlane, JM, Simm, G and Emmans, GC 2004. Effects of food quality on growth and carcass composition in lambs of two breeds and their cross. Animal Science 78, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, JM and Simm, G 2007. Genetic improvement programme for meat type sheep: an experience from the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium about Goat and Sheep Meat Type – 3rd SINCORTE, Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, JM, Lewis, RM and Emmans, GC 2004. Growth and carcass composition of lambs of two breeds and their cross grazing ryegrass and clover swards. Animal Science 79, 387–396.Google Scholar
McLaren, A, Lambe, NR, Brotherstone, S, Conington, J, Mrode, R and Bunger, L 2012a. Investigation into the presence of genotype by environment interactions (G×E) in Scottish Blackface lamb traits. Small Ruminant Research 105, 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A, Lambe, NR, Brotherstone, S, Conington, J, Mrode, R and Bunger, L 2012b. Do genotype by environment interactions (G×E) exist in Scottish Blackface ewes? Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Nottingham, UK, p. 136.Google Scholar
Morgan-Davies, C, Waterhouse, A and Wilson, R 2012. Characterisation of farmers’ responses to policy reforms in Scottish hill farming areas. Small Ruminant Research 102, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, C 1998. Likelihood ratio testing of variance components in the linear mixed-effects model using restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 54, 1560–1568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, HA and Bijma, P 2005. Effects of genotype×environment interaction on genetic gain in breeding programs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 49–61.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
Neser, FWC, Erasmus, GJ and Scholtz, MM 2008. The use of cluster analysis in across herd genetic evaluations for beef cattle. South African Journal of Animal Science 38, 51–57.Google Scholar
Osoro, K, Olivan, M, Celaya, R and Martinez, A 1999. Effects of genotype on the performance and intake characteristics of sheep grazing contrasting hill vegetation communities. Animal Science 69, 419–426.Google Scholar
Robertson, A 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanna, SR, Carta, A and Casu, S 2002. Genotype by environment interaction for milk yield in Sarda dairy sheep. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 119, 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G and Dingwall, WS 1989. Selection indices for lean meat production in sheep. Livestock Production Science 21, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speijers, MHM, Carson, AF, Dawson, LER and Gordon, AW 2009. Effects of genotype and plane of nutrition on growth and carcass characteristics from hill sheep systems. Animal 3, 1232–1245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steane, DE 1983. The significance of interactions in practical sheep breeding in northern Europe. Livestock Production Science 10, 39–48.Google Scholar
Steinheim, G, Odegard, J, Adnoy, T and Klemetsdal, G 2008. Genotype by environment interaction for lamb weaning weight in two Norwegian sheep breeds. Journal of Animal Science 86, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinheim, G, Weladji, RB, Skogan, T, Adnoy, T, Skjelvag, AO and Holand, O 2004. Climatic variability and effects on ungulate body weight: the case of domestic sheep. Annales Zoologici Fennica 41, 525–538.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA and Rekaya, R 2000. A multiple-trait herd cluster model for international dairy sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 815–821.Google Scholar
Zwald, NR, Weigel, KA, Fikse, WF and Rekaya, R 2003. Application of a multiple-trait herd cluster model for genetic evaluation of dairy sires from seventeen countries. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 376–382.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

McLaren Supplementary material

McLaren Supplementary material

Download McLaren Supplementary material(File)
File 27.7 KB