Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:22:57.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Look ahead mate selection schemes for multi-breed beef populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

B. Hayes,
R.K. Shepherd and
S. Newman
B. Hayes*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Decision Sciences, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Queensland 4702 AustraliaCooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality), North Rockhampton, Queensland 4702 Australia
R.K. Shepherd
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Decision Sciences, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Queensland 4702 Australia
S. Newman
Affiliation:
School of Mathematical and Decision Sciences, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Queensland 4702 AustraliaCooperative Research Centre for the Cattle and Beef Industry (Meat Quality), North Rockhampton, Queensland 4702 Australia
*
† Present address: Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Attwood, Victoria, 3049, Australia E-mail:Ben.Hayes@nre.vic.gov.au
Get access

Abstract

Look ahead mate selection (LAMS) schemes have been proposed to improve longer-term genetic merit when both selection and crossbreeding are important. We investigate the performance of a LAMS scheme which includes both predicted progeny merit and predicted grandprogeny merit in a mate selection index (MSI). Simulation of a multi-breed beef population, with additive breeding values, direct and maternal breed effects and direct and maternal heterosis was used to compare response from the LAMS scheme to mate selection on progeny merit only (PROG), selection on estimated breeding value (EBV) followed by random mating (RAND) and a structured crossbreeding scheme (CROSS). An additional strategy, LAMS + CO, was similar to LAMS but included a negative weighting on the coancestry of selected animals in the MSI to reduce inbreeding. LAMS gave up to 3% greater response in generation eight than PROG, 4·5% greater response than RAND, and 15% greater response than CROSS. Results from LAMS + CO were very similar to LAMS but inbreeding was 11% less from LAMS + CO at generation eight. The advantage of LAMS and LAMS + CO over PROG in later generations was hypothesized to be the result of positive assortative mating and greater use of maternal effects. Evidence to support the hypothesis of assortative mating was a positive significant correlation of EBVs of mates (sires and dams) in LAMS and LAMS + CO but not in PROG. Strategies PROG, LAMS and LAMS + CO all created closed populations of animals with optimum composite breed proportions.

Keywords

crossbreedinginbreedinglook ahead mate selectionselection

Information

Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 2002, pp. 13 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Falconer, D. S. and Mackay, T. F. C. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, fourth edition. Longman, England.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. J., Shepherd, R. K. and Newman, S. 1998. A tactical approach to improving long-term response in across-breed mating plans. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 23, pp. 439–442.Google Scholar
Jansen, G. B. and Wilton, J. W. 1985. Selecting mating pairs with linear programming techniques. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1302–1305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinghorn, B. P. 1986. Mating plans for selection across breeds. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. 12, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1998. Mate selection by groups. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 55–63.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. and Shepherd, R. K. 1994. A tactical approach to breeding for information rich designs. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 17, pp. 225–261.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. and Shepherd, R. K. 1999. Mate selection for the tactical implementation of breeding programs. Proceedings of the 13th conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, vol. 13, pp. 130–133.Google Scholar
Lin, C. Y. 1996. Optimization of breed composition to maximise net merit of synthetic populations. Technical note. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1477–1480.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1997. Maximising the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 75: 934–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, S., MacNeil, M. D., Reynolds, W. I., Knapp, B. W. and Urick, J. J. 1993. Fixed effects in the formation of a composite line of beef cattle. 1. Experimental design and reproductive performance. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2026–2032.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. K. and Kinghorn, B. P. 1994. A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 26: 495–516.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. K. and Kinghorn, B. P. 1998. A tactical approach to the design of crossbreeding programs. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 25, pp. 431–438.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. K. and Kinghorn, B. P. 1999. Algorithms for mate selection. Proceedings of the 13th conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, vol 13, pp. 126–129.Google Scholar
Wray, N. R. and Hill, W. G. 1989. Asymptotic rates of response from index selection. Animal Production 49: 217–227.Google Scholar