Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:47:38.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative reproductive performance evaluation of Holstein Friesian cattle breeds in two different agro ecological conditions, Oromia region, Ethiopia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2016

Destaw Worku ,
Kefyalew Alemayehu  and
Mussie H/Melekote
Destaw Worku
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Alage ATVET College, P.O. Box 77, Oromia, Ethiopia
Kefyalew Alemayehu*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bahirdar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahirdar, Ethiopia
Mussie H/Melekote
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bahirdar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahirdar, Ethiopia
*
Correspondence to: Kefyalew Alemayehu, Department of Animal Production and Technology, Bahirdar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahirdar, Ethiopia. email: [email protected]
Get access

Summary

Comparative study was conducted at Alage and Ardaita Agricultural Technical and Vocational Education Training College dairy farm to evaluate the reproductive performance of Holstein Friesian (HF) and associated factors in the two farms. The data collected from 2000 to 2015 on reproductive traits (n = 1688) were analyzed using general linear model procedures of SAS version 9.2 (SAS, 2008). The result revealed that an overall least square means and standard errors for Age at first Service (AFS), Age at first calving (AFC), Calving interval (CI), Days open (DO) and Number of services per conception were 29.70 ± 0.49 months, 39.75 ± 0.53 months, 465.76 ± 7.22 days, 188.11 ± 7.22 days and 1.31 ± 0.04, respectively. AFC was significantly influenced by agro ecology (P < 0.001) and year of birth (P < 0.01). Besides this, agro ecology (P < 0.001) and year of birth (P < 0.05) was significantly influenced by AFC. Year of calving and parity had significant effect (P < 0.001) on CI and DO. Except CI, agro ecology had significant effect on all traits. Service per conception was significantly influenced by agro ecology (P < 0.05) and year of calving (P < 0.01). Season of birth and season of calving was not significant on all reproductive traits. Except SPC, the result obtained for AFS, AFC, CI and DO were below the standard expected from commercial dairy farm. Poor efficiency of estrus detection and expression were the most probable management factors accounted for longer period of AFS, AFC, CI and DO. Improving the level of nutrition as well as efficiency of estrus detection system is required for optimal reproduction performance of HF breed in the area.

Résumé

Une étude comparative a été menée dans les fermes des Écoles de Formation Agricole d'Alage et d'Ardaita afin d’évaluer les performances de reproduction et autres paramètres associés chez la race Holstein-Frisonne. Les données de reproduction (n = 1688), recueillies entre 2000 et 2015, ont été analysées en utilisant la procédure du modèle linéaire généralisé du logiciel SAS version 9.2 (SAS, 2008). Les analyses ont décelé que, dans l'ensemble, les moyennes des moindres carrés et les erreurs-types pour l’âge à la première insémination (API), l’âge au premier vêlage (APV), l'intervalle entre vêlages (IV), le nombre de jours ouverts (NJO) et le nombre d'inséminations par fécondation (NIF) ont été de 29,70 ± 0,49 mois, 39,75 ± 0,53 mois, 465,76 ± 7,22 jours, 188,11 ± 7,22 jours et 1,31 ± 0,04, respectivement. L'API a été significativement affecté par l'agro-écologie (p < 0,001) et par l'année de naissance (p < 0,01). Par ailleurs, l'agro-écologie (p < 0,001) et l'année de naissance (p < 0,05) ont aussi influencé significativement l'APV. L'année de vêlage et le rang de gestation ont eu un effet significatif (p < 0,001) sur l'IV et le NJO. Hormis l'IV, l'agro-écologie a eu un effet significatif sur tous les paramètres. Le NIF a été significativement affecté par l'agro-écologie (p < 0,05) et par l'année de vêlage (p < 0,01). La saison de naissance et la saison de vêlage n'ont affecté significativement aucun des paramètres reproductifs. Excepté le NIF, les résultats obtenus pour l'API, l'APV, l'IV et le NJO ont été inférieurs à la norme des exploitations laitières commerciales. La faible efficacité de détection des chaleurs a été probablement le principal facteur d’élevage expliquant l'allongement de l'API, de l'APV, de l'IV et du NJO. L'amélioration du niveau nutritionnel ainsi que celle de l'efficacité de la détection des chaleurs s'avèrent nécessaires pour atteindre des performances de reproduction optimales chez la race Holstein-Frisonne dans la zone.

Resumen

Se llevó a cabo un estudio comparativo en las granjas de las Escuelas de Formación Agraria de Alage y Ardaita para evaluar los resultados reproductivos y otros parámetros asociados en ganado Frisón (Holstein). Los datos reproductivos (n = 1688), tomados entre 2000 y 2015, fueron analizados usando el procedimiento del modelo lineal generalizado del programa SAS versión 9.2 (SAS, 2008). Los análisis arrojaron que, en conjunto, las medias por mínimos cuadrados y los errores estándares para la edad a la primera inseminación (EPI), la edad al primer parto (EPP), el intervalo entre partos (IP), los días abiertos (DA) y el número de inseminaciones por gestación (NIG) fueron de 29,70 ± 0,49 meses, 39,75 ± 0,53 meses, 465,76 ± 7,22 días, 188,11 ± 7,22 días y 1,31 ± 0,04, respectivamente. La EPI se vio significativamente afectada por la ecología del sistema agrícola (p < 0,001) y por el año de nacimiento (p < 0,01). Asimismo, la ecología del sistema agrícola (p < 0,001) y el año de nacimiento (p < 0,05) también influyeron significativamente sobre la EPP. El año y el número de parto tuvieron un efecto significativo (p < 0,001) sobre el IP y los DA. Exceptuando el IP, la ecología del sistema agrícola tuvo un efecto significativo sobre todos los parámetros. El NIG se vio significativamente afectado por la ecología del sistema agrícola (p < 0,05) y por el año de parto (p < 0,01). La época de nacimiento y la época del parto no afectaron significativamente a ninguno de los parámetros reproductivos. Salvo el NIG, los resultados obtenidos para la EPI, la EPP, el IP y los DA estuvieron por debajo de los estándares esperados en explotaciones lecheras comerciales. La escasa eficiencia en la detección de los celos fue probablemente el principal factor de manejo responsable del alargamiento de la EPI, la EPP, el IP y los DA. La mejora del nivel nutricional así como de la eficiencia en la detección de los celos se hace necesaria para alcanzar unos resultados reproductivos óptimos en el ganado Frisón de la zona.

Keywords

Agro ecologyHolstein Friesianreproductive performanceagro-écologieHolstein-Frisonneperformances de reproductionecología del sistema agrícolaFrisona-Holsteinresultados reproductivos
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 58 , June 2016 , pp. 31 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2016 

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

Abdullah, . 2005. Factors effecting productive and reproductive traits, genetic and phenotypic correlation of various parameters of black and white Danish Friesian cattle at government dairy farm Quetta. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University Peshawar, Pakistan. (M.Sc. thesis). pp. 29–80.Google Scholar
Abera, H., Abegaz, S. & Mekasha, J. 2010. Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Growth Traits of Horro Cattle and their Crosses with Holestien Friesian and Jersey at Bako Agricultural Research Center, Western. Oromia, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Agyemang, K. & Nkhonjera, L.P. 1990. Productivity of cross bred cattle on smallholder farms in Southern Malawi. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 22: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, M.-K., Ahmed, B.T., Musa, L.M.-A. & Peters, K.J. 2007. Milk production and reproduction traits of different grades of zebu x Friesian crossbreds under semi-arid conditions. Arch. Tierz., Dummerstorf. 50(3): 240–249.Google Scholar
Alemu, G.W., Alemayehu, M., Demeke, S., Dediye, S. & Tadesse, A. 2000. Status of dairy research in Ethiopia. In the role of village dairy co-operatives in dairy development. Smallholder Dairy Development Project (SDDP) Proceeding Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Asimwe, L. & Kifaro, G.C. 2007. Effect of breed, season, year and parity on reproductive performance of dairy cattle under smallholder production system in Bukoba district, Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 19, Article #152. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/10/asim19152.htm Google Scholar
Ayalew, M. & Asefa, B. 2013. Reproductive and lactation performances dairy cows in Chacha Town and nearby selected kebeles, North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia..World. J. Agri. Sci., In press. 1(1): 008–017.Google Scholar
Banga, C.B., Mostert, B.E., Makgahlela, M.L., Theron, H.E. & van der Westhuizen, J. 2007. Impact of advances in animal recording and genetic evaluation technologies on dairy herd performance in South Africa. Proc. South African Society of Animal Science Congress, Bella, July 2007.Google Scholar
Banga, C.B., Neser, F.W., Van der Westhuizen, J. & Garrick, D.J. 2009. Economic values for dairy production traits under different milk payment systems in South Africa. South African J. Anim. Sci., 39(Supplement 1). http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajas/article/view/61162 Google Scholar
Bekele, T. 2002. Reproductive performances of zebu (Fogera) breed in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Debre Zeit. (DVM thesis).Google Scholar
Ben Salem, M., Djemali, M., Kayouli, C. & Majdoub, A. 2006. A review of environmental and management factors affecting the reproductive performance of Holstein-Friesian dairy herds in Tunisia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 18(4). Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd18/4/sale18053.htm Google Scholar
Bitew, A., Taye, M., Kebede, A., Mekuriaw, G., Tasew, A., Tezera, M. & Goshu, G. 2010. Milk yield and calf growth performance of cattle under partial suckling system at Andassa Livestock Research Centre, North West Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 22(136). Retrieved November 7, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/8/bite22136.htm Google Scholar
Chenyambuga, S.W. & Mseleko, K.F. 2009. Reproductive and lactation performances of Ayrshire and Boran crossbred cattle kept in smallholder farms in Mufindi district, Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 21(100). Retrieved November 7, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/7/chen21100.htm Google Scholar
CSA. 2012/13. Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics.Google Scholar
Demeke, S., Neser, F.W.C., Schoeman, S.J., Erasmus, G.J., Van Wyk, J.B. & Gebrewolde, A. 2000. Preliminary estimates of additive and heterotic effects on milk production traits. Short paper and poster abstracts: 38th Congress of the South African Society of Animal Science, 30(Supplement 1). (Accessed on April 14, 2007).Google Scholar
Demeke, S., Neser, F.W.C. & Schoeman, S.J. 2003. Early growth performance of Bos Taurus x Bos indicus cattle crosses in Ethiopia: evaluation of different crossbreeding models. J. Anim. Breed. Genet, 120: 39–50.Google Scholar
Demeke, S., Neser, F.W.C. & Schoeman, S.J. 2004. Estimation of genetic parameters for Boran, Friesian and crosses of Friesian and Jersey with Boran cattle in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia: milk production traits and cow weight. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 121: 57–65, 163–175.Google Scholar
Denberga, Y., Belihu, K., Merga, B., Lobago, F., Gustafson, H. & Kindahl, H. 2009. Study on reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cattle under smallholder conditions in and around Ziway, Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 21(6).Google Scholar
Denbarga, Y., Woldegebriel, B. & Shiferaw, D. 2012. Reproductive performance of Boran Cows at Tatesa Cattle Breeding Center.Google Scholar
Dinka, H. 2012. Reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows under smallholder condition in Ethiopia. Int. J. Livest. Product., 3(3): 25–28.Google Scholar
Fekadu, A., Kassa, T. & Belihu, K. 2010. Reproductive performance of Holstein–Friesian dairy cows at Alage Dairy Farm, Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Anim. Plant Sci., 14.Google Scholar
Feleke, G. 2003. A review of the small scale dairy sector in Ethiopia. FAO prevention of food losses programme. Milk and milk products, post-harvest losses and food safety in sub-Saharan Africa.Google Scholar
Goshu, G. 2005. Breeding efficiency, lifetime lactation and calving performance of Friesian-Boran crossbred cows at Cheffa farm, Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 17(7).Google Scholar
Haile, A., Ayalew, W., Kebede, N., Dessie, T. & Tegegne, A. 2011. Breeding Strategy to Improve Ethiopian Boran Cattle for Meat and Milk Production. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).Google Scholar
Herath, H.M.S.P., Sivayoganathan, B. & Dissanayaka, S. 2002. A retrospective study on the reproductive performance of cows in the agro-ecological zones of central province of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Vet. J., 49: 1–6.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, N., Abraha, A. & Mulugeta, S. 2011. Assessment of reproductive performance of crossbred cattle (Holstein Friesian X Zebu) in Gondar Town. Global Veter., 6(6): 561–566.Google Scholar
Iffa, K., Hegde, B.P. & Kumsa, T. 2006. Lifetime production and reproduction performances of Bos taurus x Bos indicus crossbred cows in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Eth. J. Anim. Prod., 6(2): 37–52.Google Scholar
IGAD (Inter governmental Authority on Development). 2010. The contribution of livestock to economies of IGAD member states. IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative, working paper No. 02–10, 6–18.Google Scholar
Kebede, M. 2003. An Evaluation of Reproductive performance of Horro cattle in Ethiopia. Free State University, Texas, South Africa. (Ph.D. thesis). 48p.Google Scholar
Kebede, H. 2015. Productive and Reproductive Performance of Holstein-Friesian Cows under Farmer's Management in Hossana Town, Ethiopia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kebede, G., Kebede, M., Midexa, T. & Eshetu, S. 2011. Comparative reproductive performance of Horro (Zebu) with Horro x Friesian and Horro x Jersey females in sub humid environments of Bako. Retrieved on 17 December 2013. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/8/Kebe23171.htm.Google Scholar
Kollalpitiya, K.M.P.M.B., Premaratne, S. & Peiris, B.L. 2012. Reproductive and productive performance of exotic dairy cattle breeds of Sri Lanka. Tropical Agri. Res., 23(4): 319–326.Google Scholar
Krishantan, G. & Sinniah, J. 2014. Productive and Reproductive Performance of Holstein Friesian Cattle in the Hill Country of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Lateef, M. 2007. Productive performance of Holstein Friesian and Jersey cattle in subtropical environment of the Punjab, Pakistan. Department of Animal Management, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan. (Ph.D. thesis).Google Scholar
Lateef, M., Gondal, K.Z., Younas, M., Sarwary, M., Mustafa, M.I. & Bashir, M.K. 2008. Milk production potential of pure bred Holstein Friesian and Jersey cows in subtropical environment of Pakistan. Pakistan Vet. J., 28(1): 9–12.Google Scholar
Lemma, H., Belihu, K. & Sheferaw, D. 2010. Study on the reproductive performance of Jersey cows at Wolaita Sodo dairy farm, Southern Ethiopia. Eth. J. Vet., 4(1): 53–70.Google Scholar
Lijalem, T., Assefa, A. & Sharo, A. 2015. Dairy cattle production at smallholder level in Sidama zone selected districts, southern Ethiopia. J. Food Sci. Qual.Manag., 40.Google Scholar
Lobago, F. 2007. Reproductive and Lactation Performance of Dairy Cattle in the Oromia Central Highlands of Ethiopia with Special Emphasis on the Pregnancy Period. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. (Doctoral thesis).Google Scholar
Lobago, F. & Bekana, M., Gustafson, H. & Kindahl, H. 2006. Reproductive performances of dairy cows in small holder production system in Sellale, Central Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health prod. 38: 333–342.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, P. 1951. The effect of environment and heredity on lactation. J. Agri. Sci., 41: 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekuriaw, G., Ayalew, W. & Hegde, P.B. 2009. Growth and reproductive performance of Ogaden cattle at Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Eth. J. Anim. Prod., 9(1): 13–38.Google Scholar
Melaku, F. 2007. Reproductive and productive performance of Holstein Friesian cattle at Alage, Southern Ethiopia. Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia. (M.Sc. thesis).Google Scholar
MoA. 2012. Livestock growth strategy and action. Draft discussion paper. Addis Ababa, MoA. (Amharic version).Google Scholar
Moges, N. 2012. Study on reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows under Small holder conditions in and around Gondar, North Western. Eth. J. Reprod. Infer., 3(3): 38–41.Google Scholar
Mugerewa, M. 2009. Milk yield and reproductive performance of dairy cattle under smallholder management system in north-eastern Amhara region of Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Mulangilam, R.C.T. 1997. A study of dairy cattle productivity in Tanga region. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. (M.Sc. thesis). pp. 132.Google Scholar
Mureda, E. & Mekuriaw, Z. 2007. Reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows in Eastern Lowlands of Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 19(11).Google Scholar
National Meterological Service Agency. 2010. Meterological data, oromia, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Ngodigha, E.M., Etokeren, E. & Mgbere, O. 2009. Evaluation of age at first calving and number of service per conception traits on milk yield potentials of Holstein Frisian x Bunaji crossbred cows. Res. J. Anim. Sci., 3(1): 6–9.Google Scholar
Niazi, A., , A.K. & Aleem, M. 2003. Comparative studies on the reproductive efficiency of imported and local born Friesian Cows in Pakistan. Biol. Sci., 3(4): 388–395.Google Scholar
Rensis, F.D. & Scaramuzzi, R.J. 2003. Heat stress and seasonal effects on reproduction in the dairy cow--a review. Theriogenology, 60: 1139–1151.Google Scholar
SAS 9.2. 2008. Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc.. Kary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sattar, A., Mirza, R.H., Niazi, A.A.K. & Latif, M. 2005. Productive and Reproductive Performance of Holstein Friesian Cows in Pakistan. Research Institute for Physiology of Animal Reproduction, Bhunikey (Pattoki), Distt. Kasur, Pakistan-55300.Google Scholar
Shiferaw, Y., Tenhagen, B.A., Bekana, M. & Kassa, T. 2003. Reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows in different production systems in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 35: 551–561.Google Scholar
Tadesse, M. & Dessie, T. 2003. Milk production performance of zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Tadesse, M., Thiengtham, J., Pinyopummin, A. & Prasanpanich, S. 2010. Productive and reproductive performance of Holstein Friesian dairy cows in Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 22(2).Google Scholar
Tessema, G., Gebre-Wold, A. & Jayaparakash, . 2003. Study on reproductive efficiency of Boran and its crosses at Holetta Research Farm: effect of genotype, management and environment. Ethiopian J. Anim. Prod., 3(1): 89–107, 1607–3835. Tropical Highlands of Ethiopia: Reproduction Traits.Google Scholar
Tolla, N. & Demeke, S. 2000. Effect of calving year, season, age and parity classes on production and reproduction performance of Holstein-Friesian cows at Holetta state farm. Pastoralism and agro pastoralism: which way forward. Proceedings of the 8th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP). 24–25 August 2000, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Tsegaye, M., Gebrekidan, B. & Afera, B. 2014. Survey on reproductive performance of smallholder dairy cows in Hawassa City, Ethiopia. J. Reprod. Infertility, 5(3): 69–75.Google Scholar
Usman, T., Guo, G., Suhail, S.M., Ahmed, S., Qiaoxiang, L., Qureshi, M.S. & Wang, Y. 2012. Performance traits study of Holstein Friesian cattle under subtropical conditions. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 22(2 Suppl.): 92–95.Google Scholar
Yalew, B., Lobago, F. & Goshu, G. 2011. Calf survival and reproductive performance of Holstein–Friesian cows in central Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health. Prod., 43: 359–365.Google Scholar