Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:46:56.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental effects on bull performance test results

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

Measurements of growth rate, food intake and food conversion efficiency on 235 Hereford bulls, from the first 4 years of a selection experiment, were used to assess the effects of rearing method, dam age and year/season of birth. Bulls were either reared artificially from birth to 84 days of age, or reared on their own dam to 84 or 168 days of age, to examine whether non-genetic effects on performance could be reduced by early weaning. All bulls were performance tested on ad libitum feeding from 200 to 400 days of age. Artificially-reared bulls had lower live weights at the start of test, which led to higher food conversion efficiency on test. Bulls reared naturally to 84 days of age were least affected by dam age and year/season of birth and performed as well as those weaned at 168 days of age. Earlier weaning of bulls entering central performance tests would reduce these environmental effects on performance, and may increase the accuracy of identifying bulls with genetically-superior growth and efficiency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 177 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

Andersen, B. B., Baerpemaeker, A. De, Bittante, G., Bonaiti, B., Colleau, J. J., Flmland, E., Jansen, J., Lewis, W. H. E., Politiek, R. D., Seeland, G., Teehan, T. J. and Werkmeister, F. 1981. Performance testing of bulls in AI: report of a working group of the Commission on Cattle Production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 8: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. L., Wickham, B. W. and Morris, C. A. 1982. The accuracy of central bull performance tests in New Zealand as evaluated by subsequent progeny testing. Proc. 2nd Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 8, pp. 300–304. Editorial Garsi.Google Scholar
Bampton, P. R., Curran, M. K. and Kempson, R. E. 1977. A comparison of ‘on-farm’ and station testing in pigs. Anim. Prod. 25: 83–94.Google Scholar
Collins-Lusweti, E. 1981. Estimates of genetic and environmental variance and the development of selection indices in farm and station performance tests of beef cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, Wye College, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. C. and Morris, C. A. 1978. A review of central performance testing of beef bulls and of recent research in New Zealand. Livest. Prod. Sci. 5: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De ROO, G. and Fimland, E. A. 1983. A genetic analysis of performance and progeny test data for young bulls of Norwegian red cattle and various Friesian crosses. Livest. Prod. Sci. 10: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's guide for LSML76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State Univ., Columbus. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Kilkenny, J. B., Guy, D. R. and Cook, G. L. 1980. Review of pedigree beef records. Br. Cattle Breed. Club Dig. No. 35, pp. 74–87.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. H. E. and Allen, D. M. 1974. Performance testing for beef characteristics. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 1, pp. 671–679. Editorial Garsi.Google Scholar
Lindhe, B. 1974. Improvement in beef breeding by selection. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. I, pp. 655–669. Editorial Garsi.Google Scholar
Meat And Livestock Commission. 1971. Beef Improvement Scientific Study Group Report. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. F. 1976. Multivariate Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Okantah, S. A. 1978. A study of some genetic and environmental aspects of central performance testing of beef cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, Wye College, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Okantah, S. A. and Curran, M. K. 1982. A review on the effects of the environment in the central performance testing of beef cattle. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 18: (2), 39–48.Google Scholar
Özkütük, K. and Bichard, M. 1977. Studies of pedigree Hereford cattle breeding. 1. Herdbook analyses. Anim. Prod. 24: 1–13.Google Scholar
Pabst, W., Kilkenny, J. B. and Lanoholz, H. J. 1977. Genetic and environmental factors influencing calf performance in pedigree beef cattle in Britain. 1. The influence of environmental effects on birth, 200-day and 400-day weights. Anim. Prod. 24: 29–39.Google Scholar
Petty, R. R. and Cartwright, T. C. 1966. A summary of genetic and environmental statistics for growth and conformation traits of young beef cattle. Dep. Tech. Rep., Tex. A and M. Univ. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 5.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. A., Chambers, S. and Hammond, K. 1982. Systematic environmental influences on weight at 420 and 550 days for Angus heifers in Australia. Proc. Wld Congr. Sheep Beef Cattle Breed, (ed. Barton, R. A. and Smith, W. C.), Vol. 1, pp. 465–467. Dunsmore Press, Palmerston North, NZ.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1983. Selection of beef cattle for efficiency of lean growth. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Steane, D. E. and Jordan, C. 1979. Progeny test results on Hereford bulls weight-recorded on the farm. Anim. Prod. 28: 49–53.Google Scholar
Standal, N. 1977. Studies on breeding and selection schemes in pigs. VI. Correlation between breeding values estimated from station test and on-farm-test data. Acta Agric. scand. 27: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, A. K. W. 1982. Effects of initial age and weight on test daily gains of station-tested bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar