Response to selection in Australian Merino sheep. VIII.* Further results on selection for high clean wool weight with attention to quality

Abstract

Results of selection for high clean wool weight per head with control of quality are reported for two selection groups over the period 1966–74. Results for the same experiment for the periods 1950–1959 and 1961–64 were reported earlier. Both groups were selected for high clean wool weight, one (S) with a ceiling on fibre diameter and degree of skin wrinkle, and the other (MS) with a lower limit on staple crimp frequency and a ceiling on skin wrinkle. Genetic progress in clean wool weight was greater in S than in MS over the 1966–74 period (0.12–0.15 lb/annum, compared with 0.06–0.09). This was to be expected from genetic correlations of clean wool weight with fibre diameter (low positive) and staple crimp frequency (high negative). The result supports the previous recommendation that staple crimp frequency is an inefficient way of controlling wool quality while attempting to improve quantity by selection, because its use severely restricts the likely progress in quantity. The actual rate of progress in the S group was similar to that in the period 1950–59, which was followed by a fall in superiority of the selected over the control group animals born during 1961–64. The recovery of response in the 1966–74 period negates the suggestion that the loss of response during the 1961-64 period was due to a 'plateau'. The most likely explanation is that a genotype x environment interaction occurred, such that the genetic gain made in the 1950-59 period could not be expressed in the poorer environments of 1960–65, but reappeared gradually under the improving environment of the 1966–74 period. Attempts to remove this interaction by regression of response on the mean clean wool weight of the unselected control group (as an index of the level of the environment) for each year, were not successful. The interaction is, therefore, not simply a case of all selection groups being equal when the environment is poor. ________________ *Part VII, Aust. J. Agric. Res., 26: 937 (1975).