Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-zgpz2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-23T06:23:07.559Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Number of females in cattle, sheep, pig, goat and horse breeds predicted from a single year's registration data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

S. J. G. Hall*
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
Get access


An objective and accountable method is needed for deducing the number of registered animals in a breed from registration data. By following the principle that individual breeders register sufficient young females to be certain of having enough replacements for their current breeding stock, the ratios were calculated of the number of adult females in a breed to the number of female registrations, in a given year. Number of breeds considered were 8 cattle, 16 sheep, 8 pigs, 1 goat and 2 equines, all in the United Kingdom or Ireland. This yielded multipliers (4.4 for cattle, 3.3 for sheep, 3.1 for pigs, with confidence limits; and a point estimate of 5.2 for goats) enabling total adult female population to be predicted from a single year's registration data. There was considerable variation between breeds in values of the multiplier, apparently for reasons of breed history and function. This was particularly evident for equines where the two breeds yielded multipliers of 3.8 and 13.9. Multipliers, using registration data that are already in the public domain, can provide an estimate of breed numerical size, which a breed society can either accept or replace with an audited census.

Full Paper
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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.)


Anonymous 2003. Annual BPA survey of rare pig breeds. Ark 31 (Spring 2003), 2731.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005a. Pig bloodline survey – part 1. Ark 33 (Summer 2005), 3033.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. Pig bloodline survey. Ark 33 (Autumn 2005), 4245.Google Scholar
Bates, M 2002. Annual BPA survey of rare pig breeds. Ark 30 (Spring 2002), 2226.Google Scholar
Caballero, A, Toro, MA 2000. Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genetical Research 75, 331343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caswell, H 2001. Matrix population models. Construction, analysis, and interpretation, 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 2002. UK country report on farm animal genetic resources 2002. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.Google Scholar
Donald, HP, El Itriby, AA 1945. Herd size and its genetical significance in pedigree cattle breeding. Journal of Agricultural Science 35, 8494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Federation of Thoroughbred Breeders’ Associations (EFTBA) 2007. Annual report 2008 and statistical overview. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from Scholar
Groeneveld, LF, Lenstra, JA, Eding, H, Toro, MA, Scherf, B, Pilling, D, Negrini, R, Finlay, EK, Jianlin, H, Groeneveld, E, Weigend, S, GLOBALDIV Consortium 2010. Genetic diversity in farm animals – a review. Animal Genetics 41 (suppl. 1), 631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, SJG 1986. Genetic conservation of rare British sheep: the Portland, Manx Loghtan and Hebridean breeds. Journal of Agricultural Science 107, 133144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, SJG 1989a. Breed structures of rare pigs: implications for conservation of the Berkshire, Tamworth, Middle White, Large Black, Gloucester Old Spot, British Saddleback, and British Lop. Conservation Biology 3, 3038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, SJG 1989b. Conserving and developing minority British breeds of sheep: the example of the Southdown. Journal of Agricultural Science 112, 3945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, SJG, Clutton-Brock, J 1988. Two hundred years of British farm livestock. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Kiddy, G 2003. The British Lop pig. Ark 31 (Summer 2003), 3435.Google Scholar
Nix, J, Hill, P 1998. Farm management pocketbook, 29th edition. Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent.Google Scholar
Olori, VE, Wickham, B 2004. Strategies for the conservation of the indigenous Kerry cattle of Ireland. Animal Genetic Resources Information 35, 3747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özkütük, K, Bichard, M 1977. Studies of pedigree Hereford cattle breeding 1. Herdbook analyses. Animal Production 24, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, P 1989. Goats – a guide to management. Crowood Press, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK.Google Scholar
Searle, P 2009. 2009 census report. Golden Guernsey Goat Society. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from Scholar
Soffe, RJ (ed.) 2003. Primrose McConnell's the agricultural notebook, 20th edition. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Townsend, SJ 2004. UK rare breeds: population genetic analyses and implications for applied conservation. In Farm animal genetic resources (ed. G Simm, B Villanueva, KD Sinclair and S Townsend), pp. 299304. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Trewhella, R 2008. The rise and rise of British Jerseys. In The World Jersey Journal, 18th International Conference of the World Jersey Cattle Bureau (ed. D Frigot), pp. 4446. Royal Jersey Agricultural and Horticultural Society, Jersey.Google Scholar
Vu Tien Khang, J 1983. Methods of analysis of demographic and genealogical data in the populations of domestic animals. Génétique Sélection Evolution 15, 263298.Google Scholar
Young, GB, Purser, AF 1962. Breed structure and genetic analysis of Border Leicester sheep. Animal Production 4, 379389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar