Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:39:13.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic differences based on a beef terminal index are reflected in future phenotypic performance differences in commercial beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

S. M. Connolly ,
A. R. Cromie  and
D. P. Berry
S. M. Connolly
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Co. Cork, Ireland Anglo Beef Processers, Castle Street, Ardee, Co. Louth, Ireland
A. R. Cromie
Affiliation:
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland
D. P. Berry*
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: donagh.berry@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The increased demand for animal-derived protein and energy for human consumption will have to be achieved through a combination of improved animal genetic merit and better management strategies. The objective of the present study was to quantify whether differences in genetic merit among animals materialised into phenotypic differences in commercial herds. Carcass phenotypes on 156 864 animals from 7301 finishing herds were used, which included carcass weight (kg), carcass conformation score (scale 1 to 15), carcass fat score (scale 1 to 15) at slaughter as well as carcass price. The price per kilogram and the total carcass value that the producer received for the animal at slaughter was also used. A terminal index, calculated in the national genetic evaluations, was obtained for each animal. The index was based on pedigree index for calving performance, feed intake and carcass traits from the national genetic evaluations. Animals were categorised into four terminal index groups on the basis of genetic merit estimates that were derived before the expression of the phenotypic information by the validation animals. The association between terminal index and phenotypic performance at slaughter was undertaken using mixed models; whether the association differed by gender (i.e. young bulls, steers and heifers) or by early life experiences (animals born in a dairy herd or beef herd) was also investigated. The regression coefficient of phenotypic carcass weight, carcass conformation and carcass fat on their respective estimated breeding values (EBVs) was 0.92 kg, 1.08 units and 0.79 units, respectively, which is close to the expectation of one. Relative to animals in the lowest genetic merit group, animals in the highest genetic merit group had, on average, a 38.7 kg heavier carcass, with 2.21 units greater carcass conformation, and 0.82 units less fat. The superior genetic merit animals were, on average, slaughtered 6 days younger than their inferior genetic merit contemporaries. The superior carcass characteristics of the genetically elite animals materialised in carcasses worth €187 more than those of the lowest genetic merit animals. Although the phenotypic difference in carcass traits of animals divergent in terminal index differed statistically by animal gender and early life experience, the detected interactions were generally biologically small. This study clearly indicates that selection on an appropriate terminal index will produce higher performing animals and this was consistent across all production systems investigated.

Keywords

dairybeefgeneticbreeding valuesgenetic merit
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 5 , May 2016 , pp. 736 - 745
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Amer, PR, Simm, G, Keane, MG, Diskin, MG and Wickham, BW 2001. Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland and Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland. Livestock Production Science 67, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, PF, Renand, G and Kraass, D 2001. Genetic and phenotypic relationship among different measures of growth and feed efficiency in young bulls. Livestock Production Science 68, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, DP and Crowley, JJ 2012. Residual intake and body weight gain: a new measure of efficiency in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 90, 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, DP and Crowley, JJ 2013. Genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1594–1613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP and Evans, RD 2014. Genetics of reproductive performance in seasonal calving beef cows and its association with performance traits. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1412–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Kearney, JF, Twomey, K and Evans, RD 2013. Genetics of reproductive performance in seasonal calving dairy cattle production systems. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 52, 1–16.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Lassen, J and de Haas, Y 2015. Residual feed intake and breeding approaches for enteric methane mitigation. In Livestock production and climate change (ed. PK Malik), pp. 273–291. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, DP, Madalena, FE, Cromie, AR and Amer, PR 2006. Cumulative discounted expressions of dairy and beef traits in cattle production systems. Livestock Production Science 99, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouquet, A, Fouilloux, MN, Renand, G and Phocas, F 2009. Genetic parameters for growth, muscularity, feed efficiency and carcass traits of young beef bulls. Livestock Science 129, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burfening, PJ, Kress, DD and Friedrich, RL 1981. Calving ease and growth rate of Simmental-sired animals. III. Direct and maternal effects. Journal of Animal Science 53, 1210–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campion, B, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA and Berry, DP 2009. Evaluation of estimated genetic merit for carcass weight in beef cattle: live weights, feed intake, body measurements, skeletal and muscular scores, and carcass characteristics. Livestock Science 126, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, JL 2011. The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared to 2007. Journal of Animal Science 89, 4249–4261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, JL and Bauman, DE 2013. The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems. Annual Review Animal Bioscience 1, 469–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, AM, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2009a. Live animal measurements, carcass composition and plasma hormone and metabolite concentrations in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production. Animal 7, 933–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, AM, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2009b. Intake, growth and carcass traits in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production. Animal 6, 791–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, DH Jr, Carstens, GE and Lancaster, PA 2006. Case study: a multiple trait selection index including feed efficiency. Professional Animal Scientist 22, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, JJ, Evans, RD, Mc Hugh, N, Pabiou, T, Kenny, DA, McGee, M, Crews, DH Jr and Berry, DP 2011. Genetic associations between feed efficiency measured in a performance test station and performance of growing cattle in commercial beef herds. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3382–3393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crump, RE, Wray, NR, Thompson, R and Simm, G 1997. Assigning pedigree beef performance records to contemporary groups taking account of within-herd calving patterns. Journal of Animal Science 65, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M and Keane, MG 2005. Post-weaning performance and carcass characteristics of steer progeny from different suckler cow breed types. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 195–204.Google Scholar
Evans, RD and Cromie, AR 2012. Genetic evaluations and indexes for Irish suckler beef production systems. Received January 18, 2015, from http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2012/1571/Suckler-Cow-Breeding-Conference-2012.pdf Google Scholar
Evans, RD, Pabiou, T, Cromie, A, Kearney, F and Wickham, B 2007. Genetic improvement in the Irish suckler beef herd: Industry expectation and experience so far. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/download/926/917 Google Scholar
Evans, RD, Pabiou, T, Kearney, F and Mulder, HA 2009. Multi-breed genetic evaluation for docility in Irish suckler beef cattle. Retrieved November 16, 2014, from https://journal.interbull.org/index.php/ib/article/view/1098/1089 Google Scholar
Falconer, DS 1952. The problem of environment and selection. The American Naturalist 86, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml User Guide Release 3.0 VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES. Retrieved May 12, 2015, from UK www.vsni.co.uk vsni.de/downloads/asreml/release3/UserGuide.pdf Google Scholar
Havenstein, GB, Ferket, PR and Qureshi, MA 2003. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poultry Science 82, 1500–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR and Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, MG 2003. Beef production from Holstein–Friesian bulls and steers of New Zealand and European/American descent, and Belgian Blue×Holstein–Friesians, slaughtered at two weights. Livestock Production Science 84, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, MG and Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, MG and Diskin, MG 2007. Performance and carcass traits of progeny of Limousin sires differing in genetic merit. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 46, 63–76.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, Delaby, L and Faverdin, P 2003. The effect of genetic merit and concentrate supplementation on grass intake and milk production with Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 610–621.Google Scholar
Lidauer, M, Matilainen, K, Mantysaari, E and Stranden, I 2011. Mixed Model EquationsSolverMix99. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/mtt_en/mtt/about/researchunits/bel/biometricalgenetics/software/MiX99/documentation/7D327F881511 C24EE040A8C0033C4560.Google Scholar
McHugh, N, Cromie, AR, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2014. Validation of national genetic evaluations for maternal beef cattle traits using Irish field data. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1423–1432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McHugh, N, Evans, RD, Amer, PR, Fahey, AG and Berry, DP 2011. Genetic parameters for cattle price and body weight from routinely collected data at livestock auctions and commercial farms. Journal of Animal Science 89, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pabiou, T, Fikse, WF, Näsholm, A, Cromie, AR, Drennan, MJ, Keane, MG and Berry, DP 2009. Genetic parameters for carcass cut weight in Irish beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3865–3876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phocas, F and Sapa, J 2004. Genetic parameters for growth, reproduction performance, calving ease and suckling performance in beef cattle heifers. Journal of Animal Science 79, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, F, Everett, R and Quaas, RL 1991. Herd-year-season clustering. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Connolly supplementary material S1

Connolly supplementary material

Download Connolly supplementary material S1(File)
File 21.9 KB