Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:11:59.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cloning and genetic improvement of beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. Smith
C. Smith
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Cloning of cattle from embryos has been achieved by nuclear transfer. Repeated cloning to produce large clones of genetically identical individuals for commercial use may soon become possible. The main advantage in breeding will come from identifying and using superior clones, selected to fit particular husbandry and marketing niches. Two types of cattle clones will be required, terminal clones chosen for economic merit in production traits, such as growth and carcass traits, and maternal clones chosen for reproduction and maternal traits, such as short calving interval, ease of calving, milking and mothering ability and small mature size. Clonal selection and use will provide several steps of improvement. An initial gain will come by recruiting clones from elite stocks and further responses by selecting the best clones for commercial use. This will reverse the normal improvement lag between breeding and commercial stocks. Heterosis will also be exploited by using crossline clones. For continuous genetic improvement, genetic variation will be maintained by breeding the next generation from a number of selected male and female clones and testing and selecting their progeny, the new set of clones, as before. For maximum improvement rates, both male and female clones will need to be tested. In the short term (5 to 10 years), benefits will come from testing a large number of clones by which gains in economic merit of proportionately 0·15 to 0·30 of the mean can be achieved. Further improvements will come by rebreeding the best clones and testing and selecting the new set of clones from which annual genetic response rates of proportionately 0·02 to 0·03 per year are possible. Cloning thus offers considerable advantages in the improvement of beef cattle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 49 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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

REFERENCES

Barlow, R. 1984. Selection for growth and size in ruminants: is it time for a moratorium. Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Pretoria, pp. 421–432. South African Stud Book and Livestock Improvement Association.Google Scholar
Belonsky, G. M. and Kennedy, B. W. 1988. Selection on individual phenotype and best linear unbiased predictor of breeding value in a closed swine herd. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, J. D. 1986. The potential use of artificially produced monozygotic twins for comparative experiments. Theriogenology 26: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bockstael, N. E. 1987. Economic efficiency issues of grading and minimum quality standards. In Economic Efficiency in Agricultural and Food Marketing (ed. Kilmer, R. K. and Armbruster, W. J.), pp. 231–255. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Burrows, P. M. 1984. Inbreeding under selection from related families. Biometrics 40: 895–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1970. Efficiency of animal production — molding the biological components. Journal of Animal Science 30: 849–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1978. Animal size and efficiency — basic concepts. Animal Production 27: 367–379.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E., Guerra-martinez, P., Anderson, G. B. and Green, R. D. 1988. Twinning and performance efficiency in beef production. Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, pp. 190–193. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.Google Scholar
Guy, D. R. and Smith, C. 1981. Derivation of improvement lags in a livestock industry. Animal Production 32: 333–336.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. 1977. Order statistics of correlated variables and implications in genetic selection programmes. II. Response to selection. Biometrics 33: 703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, R. B. and Hill, W. G. 1975. The possible use of superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle to increase response to selection. Animal Production 21: 1–12.Google Scholar
Long, C. R. 1980. Crossbreeding for beef production: experimental results. Journal of Animal Science 51: 1197–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, J. L. 1988. Cloning sheep and cattle embryos. Science, Washington 239: 463–464.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicholas, F. W. and Smith, C. 1983. Increased rates of genetic change in dairy cattle by embryo transfer and splitting. Animal Production 36: 341–353.Google Scholar
Prather, R. S., Barnes, F. L., Sims, M. M., Robl, J. M., Eyestone, W. H. and First, N. L. 1987. Nuclear transplantation in the bovine embryo: assessment of donor nuclei and recipient oocyte. Biology of Reproduction 37: 859–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendel, J. E. R. and Johansson, I. 1966. The effect of heredity and contemporaneity on the variation of milk yield in cattle twins. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Animal Production, Edinburgh, p. 15 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1957. Optimum group size in progeny testing and family selection. Biometrics 13: 442–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robl, J. M., Prather, R. S., Barnes, F. L., Eyestone, W. H., Northey, D., Gilligan, B. and First, N. L. 1987. Nuclear transplantation in bovine embryos. Journal of Animal Science 64: 642–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roo, G. de 1988. Studies on breeding schemes in a closed pig population. Thesis, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1983. Effects of changes in economic weights on the efficiency of index selection. Journal of Animal Science 56: 1057–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. 1984. Rates of genetic change in farm livestock. Research and Development in Agriculture 1: 79–85.Google Scholar
Smith, C., James, J. W. and Brascamp, E. W. 1986. On the derivation of economic weights in livestock improvement. Animal Production 43: 545–551.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Meuwissen, T. H. E. and Gibson, J. P. 1987. On the use of transgenes in livestock improvement. Animal Breeding Abstracts 55: 1–10.Google Scholar
Sybenga, J. 1983. Genetic manipulation in plant breeding: somatic versus generative. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 66: 179–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, St C. S., Moore, A. J., Thiessen, R. B. and Bailey, C. M. 1985. Efficiency of food utilization in traditional and sex-controlled systems of beef production. Animal Production 40: 401–440.Google Scholar
Van vleck, L. D. 1981. Potential genetic impact of artificial insemination, sex selection, embryo transfer, cloning and selfing in dairy cattle. In New Technologies in Animal Breeding (ed. Brackett, B. C., Seidel, G. E. and Seidel, S. M.), pp. 221–242. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Willadsen, S. M. 1986. Nuclear transplantation of sheep embryos. Nature, London 320: 63–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willadsen, S. M. 1987. Towards cloning of domestic animals. In Future Aspects in Human In-Vitro Fertilization (ed. Feichtinger, W. and Kemeter, P.), pp. 232–237. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. 1988. Modification to MOET nucleus breeding schemes to improve rates of genetic progress and decrease rates of inbreeding in dairy cattle. Animal Production 49: 1–14.Google Scholar