Utilizing Conjoint Analysis to Develop Breeding Objectives for the Improvement of Pasture Species for Contrasting Environments When the Relative Values of Individual Traits Are Difficult to Assess

Abstract

<p>Despite the large number of active programs breeding improved forage plants, relatively little is known about the weightings that breeders consciously or sub-consciously give to specific traits when selecting individual plants, or that agronomists and producers use when assessing the relative merits of contrasting cultivars. This is in contrast to most modern animal breeding programs where the relative merits of novel genetics may be assessed against an index-based breeding objective. There are numbers of reasons why these technologies have not been used widely in plant breeding although applications in forest tree breeding are relatively common. A first step in defining breeding objectives for forage species can be to define the relative importance of specific traits and to interpret how these contribute to the relative potential advantage to a new plant or cultivar. One method of defining these weightings is through surveys of users followed by analyses of their combined experience. Therefore in this study, we have assessed the usefulness of discrete choice techniques in the development of weightings for specific traits in forage plant improvement based on views of both expert users (agronomists and farm consultants) and farmers who were asked to define their relative priorities when considering the renovation of a pasture. The surveys were conducted in three distinct regions of, or environments within, Australia of special relevance to meat production from beef and sheep (high rainfall, temperate (inland), and Mediterranean). In summary this study defines the focus of breeding objectives and selection criteria for different pasture species across production systems.</p>

Calculation of sheep and beef economic weightings for the seasonal dry matter production trait for use in a forage-cultivar selection decision-support tool

“…It is also advisable to compare these results with results calculated using alternative methods of calculation. Alternatives could include the use of the simpler replacement cost method (Lewis et al 2013;Ludemann & Smith 2016) and/or the use of surveys of experts through discrete choice surveys (Smith & Fennessy 2014). The latter of these methods could also provide a framework for building consensus over the relative weightings of forage traits that are difficult to measure, or that are weighted by non-economic values (eg.…”

From traits to typologies: Piloting new approaches to profiling trait preferences along the cassava value chain in Nigeria

“…The 1000minds survey (1000minds, 2020) method has been applied in breeding applications of species including pasture plants (Smith & Fennessy, 2011; Smith & Fennessy, 2014), sheep (Byrne et al., 2012), and dairy cattle (Martin‐Collado et al., 2015). These studies showed that preference survey tools can be applied in the derivation of economic values and provide insights into trait preference heterogeneity across value chains, guiding breeding programs to set accurate and impactful trait targets.…”

A comparison of methods to assess the likely on‐farm value for meat production systems of pasture traits and genetic gain through plant breeding using phalaris (Phalaris aquatica L.) as an example

“…However, there is a lack of information on the relative importance of individual traits, reducing the ability of breeders to make informed selection decisions. Due to a lack of evidence of the direct effects of improved pasture traits and genetics on farm profits and productivity, attempts have been made to assess the relative importance of individual traits through the use of expert surveys (Wheeler and Corbett, ; Smith et al ., ; Smith and Fennessy, ) or through the use of a combination of expert surveys and economic weightings (Smith and Fennessy, ).…”