Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:42:46.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters for daily live-weight gain, live fleshiness and bone thinness in station-tested Piemontese young bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

A. Albera ,
R. Mantovani ,
G. Bittante ,
A. F. Groen  and
P. Carnier
A. Albera
Affiliation:
Associazione Nazionale Allevatori Bovini di Razza Piemontese, Strada Trinità 32a, 12061 Carrù, Italy Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
R. Mantovani
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, Agripolis, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
G. Bittante
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, Agripolis, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
A. F. Groen
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. Carnier
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Padova, Agripolis, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
Get access

Abstract

Estimates of genetic parameters for beef production traits were obtained for Piemontese cattle. Data were from 988 young bulls station-tested from 1989 till 1998. Bulls entered the station at 6 to 8 weeks of age and, after an adaptation period of 3 months, were tested for growth, live fleshiness and bone thinness. Length of test was 196 days. Growth traits considered were gain at farm, gain during the adaptation period, gain on test and total gain at the station. Six different fleshiness traits and bone thinness were scored on live animals at the end of the test using a linear system. Live evaluations of fleshiness were adjusted for the weight at scoring in order to provide an assessment of conformation independent of body size. Genetic parameters were estimated using animal models. Heritability of live-weight gain ranged from 0·20 in the adaptation period to 0·60 for total gain at the station. Genetic correlations between gains at station in different periods were high (from 0·63 to 0·97). Residual correlation between gain during the adaptation period and gain during test was negative, probably due to the occurrence of compensatory growth of the animals.

Live fleshiness traits and bone thinness were of moderate to high heritability (from 0·34 to 0·55) and highly correlated indicating that heavy muscled bulls also have thin bones. Accuracy of breeding values and therefore response to selection were improved by multiple trait analysis of the live fleshiness traits and bone thinness. Overall weight gain at the station had a moderate negative genetic correlation with all live fleshiness traits and bone thinness (from –0·11 to –0·39).

Keywords

bullsgenetic parameterslive-weight gainperformance testing
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , June 2001 , pp. 449 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Carnier, P., Albera, A., Dal Zotto, R., Groen, A. F., Bona, M. and Bittante, G. 2000. Genetic parameters for direct and maternal calving ability over parities in Piedmontese cattle. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2532–2539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, J., Korver, S., Oldenbroek, J. K. and Werf, J. van der. 1987. Relationship between performance test and progeny test for veal and beef production in Dutch Red and White cattle. In Performance testing of AI bulls for efficiency and beef production in dairy and dual-purpose breeds. Study commission on cattle production and animal genetics, Wageningen, Netherlands, 27-29 April 1987. EAAP publication no. 34, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Gengler, N., Seutin, C., Boonen, F. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1995. Estimation of genetic parameters for growth, feed consumption and conformation traits for double-muscled Belgian Blue bulls performance-tested in Belgium. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3269–3273.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1995. Genetic and phenotypic (co)variances for production traits of intact male populations of purebred and composite beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2227–2234.Google Scholar
Grobet, L., Poncelet, D., Royo, L. J., Brouwers, B., Pirottin, D., Michaux, C, Ménissier, E, Zanotti, M., Dunner, S. and Georges, M. 1998. Molecular definition of an allelic series of mutations disrupting the myostatin function and causing double-muscling in cattle. Mammalian Genome 9: 210–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez, J. P., Cañon, J. and Goyache, F. 1997. Estimation of direct and maternal genetic parameters for preweaning traits in the Asturiana de los Valles beef cattle breed through animal and sire models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 114: 261–266.Google Scholar
Hagger, C. and Schneeberger, M. 1995. Influences of amount of pedigree information on computing time and of model assumptions on restricted maximum-likelihood estimates of population parameters in Swiss Black-Brown mountain sheep. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2213–2219.Google Scholar
Hanset, R., Michaux, C. and Stasse, A. 1987. Phenotypic and genetic parameters of growth traits in successive periods. In Performance testing of AI bulls for efficiency and beef production in dairy and dual-purpose breeds. Study commission on cattle production and animal genetics, Wageningen, Netherlands, 27-29 April 1987. EAAP publication no. 34, pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
Jansen, J., Andersen, B. B., Bergstròm, P. L., Busk, H., Lagerweij, G. W. and Oldenbroek, J. K. 1985. In vivo estimation of body composition in young bulls for slaughter. 2. The prediction of carcass traits from scores, ultrasonic scanning and body measurements. Livestock Production Science 12: 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallweit, E. 1976. Visual assessments. In Criteria and methods for assessment of carcass and meat characteristics in beef production experiments. Seminar on carcass and meat quality in the EEC programme of co-ordination of research on beef production, Zeist, 1975, pp. 81–89.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. W. and Trus, D. 1993. Considerations on genetic connectedness between management units under an animal model. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2341–2352.Google Scholar
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P., Smith, C. and Wilton, J. W. 1994a. Analyses of published genetic parameters estimates for beef production traits. 1. Heritability. Animal Breeding Abstracts 62: 309–338.Google Scholar
Koots, K. R., Gibson, J. P. and Wilton, J. W. 1994b. Analyses of published genetic parameters estimates for beef production traits. 2. Phenotypic and genetic correlations. Animal Breeding Abstracts 62: 825–853.Google Scholar
Liu, M. E. and Makarechian, M. 1993. Optimum test period and association between standard 140-day test period and shorter test periods for growth rate in station tested beef bulls. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110: 312–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPherron, A. C. and Lee, S. -J. 1997. Double muscling in cattle due to mutations in the myostatin gene. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94: 12457–12461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K. 1992. Variance components due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Australian beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 31: 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miglior, F., Kemp, R. A. and Burnside, E. B. 1994. Genetic parameters estimates of conformation and performance traits in station-tested Limousin bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74: 379–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohiuddin, G. 1993. Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters of some performance traits in beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 61: 496–522.Google Scholar
Neumaier, A. and Groeneveld, E. 1998. Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30: 3–26.Google Scholar
Renand, G. 1985. Genetic parameters of French beef breeds used in crossbreeding for young bulls production. II. Slaughter performance. Génétique, Sélection, Évolution 17: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, E. P. de, Wilton, J. W. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1988. Estimation of variance components for traits measured on station-tested beef bulls. Journal of Animal Science 66: 626–634.Google Scholar
Schafer, V. S., Tholen, E. and Trappmann, W. 1998. [Development of a breeding programme for beef cattle based on the case of the Fleischrinder-Herdbuch Bonn e.V 1. Breeding programme, breeding goal, performance testing and estimation of breeding values.] Zuchtungskunde 70: 157–171.Google Scholar
Stàlhammar, H., Henningsson, T. and Philipsson, J. 1997. Factors influencing ultrasonic scanning measures, muscularity scores and body measures in performance-tested dairy bulls and their uselfulnes as predictors of beef production ability in Friesian cattle. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica 47: 230–239.Google Scholar
Stàlhammar, H. and Philipsson, J. 1997. Sex-specific genetic parameters for weaning and postweaning gain in Swedish beef cattle under field conditions. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica 47: 138–147.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT® user’s guide, version 6, fourth edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC.Google Scholar
Waldron, D. F., Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L. and Johnson, D.L. 1993. Maternal effects for growth traits in beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 34: 57–70.Google Scholar