4.1 Article

Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency, growth, and body composition traits of young beef bulls

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages 177-185

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.4141/A03-085

Keywords

central test; genetic correlation; heritability; residual feed intake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genetic associations between feed efficiency, growth, and live ultrasound measured body composition traits were studied in purebred beef bulls of six breeds in Ontario bull test stations from 1991 to 2000. Feed traits included average daily feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and residual feed intake [feed intake adjusted for production alone (RFIp) or production and backfat thickness (RFIb)]. Growth traits were average daily weight gain (ADG), mid-test metabolic weight (MW), hip height (HH), and scrotal circumference (SC). Body composition traits included ultrasound backfat thickness (BF), longissimus muscle area (LMA), and predicted percentage of intramuscular fat (IFAT). Bulls were measured every 28 d for weight and individual feed intake, and at the end of test for ultrasound body composition traits. Number of records per trait ranged from 2284 (171) to 13 319 (ADG). Fixed effects of test group, breed and end of test age (within breed), and random effects of animal and herd of origin were modeled using REML bivariate analyses for all traits. Heritability estimates were moderate for all waits (0.30 to 0.55), except for EFAT (0.14). The genetic correlation between RFIp and RFIb was high (0.99) within breeds, but breeds ranked differently with respect to RFIp and RFIb. Genetic correlations of RFIb with ADG and backfat thickness were essentially zero, which indicate that selection on residual feed intake could be implemented to reduce feed intake and improve feed conversion without compromising growth or changing levels of subcutaneous fat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available