Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T05:26:21.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection indices to improve the efficiency of lean meat production in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. Simm ,
C. Smith  and
J. H. D. Prescott
G. Simm
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
C. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. H. D. Prescott
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Selection indices to improve the efficiency of lean meat production in cattle were derived with an aggregate breeding value which comprised growth rate, food conversion efficiency, killing-out proportion and carcass lean proportion. Index measurements were growth rate, food conversion efficiency and ultrasonic fat area. Relative economic values of traits in the aggregate breeding value were calculated for an 18/20-month beef system, assuming a fixed national output of lean meat. Literature estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters were used. Two indices were derived, one with a complete restriction on genetic changes in birth weight, and the other without restriction. Correlations between the index and the aggregate breeding value were 0·53 for the restricted index, and 0·57 for the unrestricted index. The maximum proportional reduction in expected economic response, due to complete restriction of birth weight was about 0·08. Selection on either index would actually lead to a slight decrease in carcass lean proportion, but this was less than the decrease expected from selection solely on growth rate. Correlations between the indices and the aggregate breeding value (measuring the accuracy of selection) fell by only about 0·01 when ultrasonic measurements were omitted from the index, but fell by about 0·09 when food conversion efficiency was omitted. Sensitivity of the indices to changes in parameters was also examined. With proportional changes of ±0·5 in individual economic weights, or absolute changes of ±0·2 in genetic correlations or −0·2 in heritabilities, the efficiency of selection ranged from 0·93 to 1·00.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Allen, D. M. and Steane, D. E. 1985. Beef selection indices. Br. Cattle Breed. Club Dig. No. 40, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
Brascamp, E. W., Smith, C. and Guv, D. R. 1985. Derivation of economic weights from profit equations. Anim. Prod. 40: 175–179.Google Scholar
Burfening, P. J., Kress, D. D., Friedrich, R. L. and Vaniman, D. 1978. Calving ease and growth rate of Simmental-sired calves. II. Genetic parameter estimates. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 930–936.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. 1970. SELIND: a Fortran computer program for genetic selection indexes. An Foras Taliintais, Dunsinea, Eire. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security. 1984. Diet and cardiovascular disease. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Report of the panel on diet in relation to cardiovascular disease. Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 28. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R., Bichard, M. and Pease, A. 1976. Objectives in pig breeding. Anim. Prod. 23: 365–387.Google Scholar
Hazel, L. N. 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics, Princeton 28: 476–490.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. and Thompson, R. 1978. Probabilities of non-positive definite between-group or genetic covariance matrices. Biometrics 34: 429–439.Google Scholar
James, J. W. 1980. Index selection for simultaneous improvement of several characters. In Well-being of Mankind and Genetics. Proc. 14th int. Congr. Genetics (ed. Vartanian, M. E.), Vol. I. Bk. 2, pp. 221–229. MIR, Moscow.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Harrington, G. 1979. Variation in the carcass characteristics of commercial British cattle. Meat Sci. 3: 53–62.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1983. Beef Yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Moav, R. 1973. Economic evaluation of genetic differences. In Agricultural Genetics. Selected Topics (ed. Moav, R.), pp. 319–352. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Rhodes, D. N. 1977. Breed and eating quality. Br. Cattle Breed. Club Dig. No. 32, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
Scottish Agricultural Colleges. 1982. Farm management handbook 1982/83. Publ. Scott. Agric. Coll., No. 93.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1983. Selection of beef cattle for efficiency of lean growth. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1983. Effects of changes in economic weights on the efficiency of index selection. J. Anim. Sci. 56: 1057–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, W. M. and Hazel, L. N. 1977. The effect of errors in the economic weights on the accuracy of selection indices. Annls Gen. Sel. Anim. 9: 87–103.Google Scholar