Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:35:22.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene flow in a national cross-breeding beef population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

D. L. Todd ,
J. A. Woolliams  and
T. Roughsedge
D. L. Todd*
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin Institute Building, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH29 9RG, UK Scottish Agriculatural College, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH29 9RG, UK
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute, Roslin Institute Building, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH29 9RG, UK
T. Roughsedge
Affiliation:
Scottish Agriculatural College, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH29 9RG, UK
*
†E-mail: Darren.Todd@sac.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Future progress in genetic improvement and the monitoring of genetic resources in beef cattle requires a detailed understanding of the population under selection. This study examines the gene flow in the UK beef population with an uncommon breeding structure involving interaction between the beef and dairy populations. British Cattle Movement Service records were used as the primary source of information, and these data were triangulated with UK government statistics, other industry information sources and existing literature to build up a profile of the UK beef industry. Estimates were made of the breed composition of suckler cows, breeding bulls and the prime slaughter population. Cross-bred animals made up 85% and 94%, respectively, of the commercial beef breeding cow and prime slaughter populations. Holstein/Friesian (through cross-breeding) made up the largest proportion of genes in both these populations with 33% and 28%, respectively. The next five most popular breeds were specialist beef breeds: Limousin (22% and 18%), Charolais (11% and 6%), Simmental (9% and 11%), Angus (7% and 8%) and Belgian Blue (6% and 6%). Combined, the top seven beef breeds accounted for 94% of beef genetics in the prime slaughter population, and 80% of this came from non-native breeds. The influence of dairy breeds in the commercial beef breeding population was highlighted by the fact that 44% of replacement commercial beef breeding females were sourced from beef-sired crosses in the dairy herd, and in total 74% of all maternal grand dams of prime slaughter animals were Holstein/Friesian. The use of selection index technology was also investigated by analysing breeding bull sale results, with the correlation between the terminal sire index and sale price of young breeding bulls being generally moderate but significant, ranging from 0.21 to 0.38 across the major beef breeds. The most influential source of genetics in the commercial suckler beef herd was natural service breeding bulls. These were mostly sourced from pedigree breeders, and accounted for 47.8% of the genetics in the prime beef population. Artificial insemination sires were responsible for 16.6% of prime beef genetics, with the remaining 35.6% coming from dairy breeds, 95% of which was Holstein/Friesian.

Keywords

animal breedingbeef cattlebreedsgene flow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , 10 November 2011 , pp. 1874 - 1886
Copyright
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.)

References

Allen, D 1990. Planned beef production. BSP Professional Books, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Amer, PR, Crump, R, Simm, G 1998. A terminal sire selection index for UK beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 67, 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, PR, Niewhof, GJ, Pollott, GE, Roughsedge, T, Connington, J, Simm, G 2007. Industry benefits from recent genetic progress in sheep and beef populations. Animal 1, 1414–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BASCO 2010. UK animal registration numbers. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://www.egenes.co.uk/bascosearchbeef/Google Scholar
Bishop, S, Woolliams, JA 2004. Genetic approaches and technologies for improving the sustainability of livestock production. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84, 911–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Blue Cattle Society (BBCS) 2009. Yearbook 2009. BBCS, Penrith, UK.Google Scholar
British Charolais Cattle Society (BCCS) 2009. Yearbook 2009. BCCS, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) 2009. Cattle keeper's handbook, version 3. BCMS, Workington, UK.Google Scholar
British Limousin Cattle Society (BLCS) 2006. Studbook and factfinder 2006. BLCS, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
British Limousin Cattle Society (BLCS) 2009. Studbook and factfinder 2009. BLCS, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
Breedplan 2010. UK animal registration numbers. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://breedplan.une.edu.au/Google Scholar
Craven, JA, Kilkenny, JB 1976. The structure of the British cattle industry. In Principles of cattle production (ed. H Swan and WH Broster), pp. 1–37. Butterworths, London, UK.Google Scholar
Defra 2004. June survey of agriculture and horticulture. Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Defra 2006. Agriculture in the United Kingdom. Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Defra 2008a. Agriculture in the United Kingdom. Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Defra 2008b. The cattle book 2008. Defra, London, UK.Google Scholar
Defra 2010. UK slaughter statistics. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://statistics.Defra.gov.uk/esg/slaughterns.htmGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J, Jobst, D, Hodges, J, Leyburn, M, O'Connor, LK, Macdonald, A, Smith, GF, Wood, P 1966. The Charolais report. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S, Nasholm, A, Johansson, K, Philipson, J 2004. Genetic relationships between caving and carcass traits for Charolais and Hereford cattle in Sweden. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2269–2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, D, Holloway, L, Gilna, B, Morris, C 2009. Genetic techniques for livestock breeding: restructuring institutional relationships in agriculture. Geoforum 40, 1041–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, JG, Clutton-Brock, J 1989. Two hundred years of British livestock. Craft Print, Singapore.Google Scholar
Keeble, M 2004. Limousin, the breed, the people, the story. Keeble, Ripon, UK.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG 1997. Description of the UK beef industry, structure and production systems. Cattle Practice 5, 145–147.Google Scholar
Lowman, B 1998. The past, present and future for UK suckler herds. Cattle Practice 6, 155–161.Google Scholar
MAFF 1977. Limousin and Simmental tests steering committee final report. MAFF, London.Google Scholar
McGowan, M 2006. Enhancing the efficiency of natural delivery of improved genetics into beef and dairy herds. Cattle Practice 14, 33–36.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Corporation (MLC) 1990. UK meat and livestock yearbook. MLC, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Office of Fair Trading (OFT) 2004. Anticipated acquisition by Genus plc of Supersires. Fleetbank House, London, UK.Google Scholar
Ozkutuk, K, Bichard, M 1977. Studies of pedigree Hereford cattle breeding. Animal Production 24, 1–13.Google Scholar
Penny, CD, Faulkner, G, Boreland, J, Doyle, B, Wilson, A, Gibson, D, Ballard, D 2001. A survey of longevity and reasons for culling in UK beef stock bulls. Cattle Practice 9, 55.Google Scholar
Pullar, D 1998. Breeding strategies for heifer replacements for the suckler herd. Cattle Practice 6, 165–168.Google Scholar
Riddell, I 2005. Single farm payment: impact on the UK beef industry. Cattle Practice 13, 41–44.Google Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Amer, PR, Thompson, R, Simm, G 2005. Development of a maternal breeding goal and tools to select for this goal in UK beef production. Animal Science 81, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) 2009. Farm management handbook. SAC, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Simm, G 1998. Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
Simm, G, Bünger, L, Villanueva, B, Hill, WG 2004. Limits to yield of farm species: genetic improvement of livestock (eds R Sylvester-Bradley and J Wiseman). In Yields of farmed species: constraints and opportunities in the 21st century, pp. 143–165. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Southgate, JR, Cook, GL, Kempster, AJ 1982. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. Animal Production 35, 87–98.Google Scholar
Todd, DL 2007. A survey of the longevity and reasons for disposal of breeding bulls in the Northern Ireland suckler herd. BSc, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar