Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:14:10.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding Jersey with Ghana Shorthorn and Sokoto Gudali cattle in a tropical environment: additive and heterotic effects for milk production, reproduction and calf growth traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. O. Rege ,
G. S. Aboagye ,
S. Akah  and
B. K. Ahunu
J. E. O. Rege
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
G. S. Aboagye
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
S. Akah
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
B. K. Ahunu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
Get access

Abstract

Crossbreeding data involving Ghana Shorthorn, Sokoto Gudali and their Jersey F1s and backcrosses collected over a 16-year period were analysed to estimate additive and heterotic effects for milk production, reproduction and calf growth traits. Sokoto Gudali was significantly better than Ghana Shorthorn in all milk production traits. Calving interval and annualized milk production were better in Gudali than in the Shorthorn. The F1s had higher lactation milk yield, milked longer, produced their first calves earlier and had shorter dry periods and calving intervals than their corresponding purebreds. However, genotype was not significant for number of services per conception. Both F1s had higher average daily gain and weaning weight than their corresponding purebreds. Sokoto Gudali backcross (Jersey × F1) was significantly (P < 0·05) better than the F1 in lactation length. However, in Gudali crosses, there was no advantage in increasing the proportion of Jersey genes beyond 0·5 for milk production traits. Additive effects were significantly (at least P < 0·05) lower in the Shorthorn and the Gudali than in Jersey for milk production traits except proportion of butterfat. Heterosis estimates were significant (P < 0·01) for milk production traits for the Shorthorn but not for the Gudali. Heterotic effects were large and significant (at least P < 0·05) in improving annualized milk production in Shorthorn crosses, whilst none of the heterotic effects for reproductive traits was significant. At both 0 and 0·5 levels of Jersey inheritance, the Gudali was superior (P < 0·01) to the Shorthorn in birth weight, weaning weight and pre-weaning average daily gain. Heterotic effects for calf traits were positive and much larger in Gudali crosses than in Shorthorn crosses. In general, backcrosses were, at best, similar to the F1s implying that upgrading these indigenous breeds beyond 0·5 European inheritance may not be desirable.

Keywords

additive effectscattlecrossbreedingheterosis
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 21 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Ahunu, B. K. 1975. Analysis of breed and environmental factors affecting birth weight, weaning weight and growth rate of pure and crossbred cattle at Agricultural Research Station, Nungua. B.Sc. dissertation, University of Ghana, Legon.Google Scholar
Alba, J. de and Kennedy, B. W. 1985. Milk production in the Latin-American Milking Criollo and its crosses with the Jersey. Animal Production 41: 143–150.Google Scholar
Bhosrekar, M. 1976. Age at first insemination and conception of three different breeds of Indian milch cattle and various strains of Zebu × taurus cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production 8: 83–84.Google Scholar
Busch, W. and Furstenberg, L. 1984. The environmental influences upon the reproductive performance in cattle. Proceedings of the tenth international congress on animal reproduction and artificial insemination, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, paper no. 132.Google Scholar
Buvanendran, V. and Mahadevan, P. 1975. Crossbreeding for milk production in Sri Lanka. World Animal Revieiv 15: 7–13.Google Scholar
Buvanendran, V., Olayiwole, M. B., Piotrowska, K. I. and Oyejola, B. A. 1981. A comparison of milk production traits in Friesian × White Fulani crossbred cattle. Animal Production 32: 165–170.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. and Syrstad, O. 1987. Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. FAO animal production and health paper no. 68.Google Scholar
Danbaro, G., Arthur, P. F. and Ahunu, B. K. 1991. Preweaning growth performance of progeny of three West African Breeds crossed with either Jersey or Friesian cattle. Indian Journal of Animal Science 61: 550–551.Google Scholar
Galina, C. S. and Arthur, G. H. 1989. Review of cattle reproduction in the tropics. Part 3. Puerperium. Animal Breeding Abstracts 57: 899–909.Google Scholar
Hollon, B. F., Branton, C., McDowell, R. E. and Meyerhoeff, D. C. 1967. Reproductive performance of purebred versus crossbred dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 50: 611–615.Google Scholar
International Livestock Centre for Africa. 1979. Trypanotolerant livestock in West and Central Africa. Vol. 2. Country studies. ILCA monograph no. 2. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Koger, M., Peacock, F. M., Kirk, W. G. and Crockett, J. R. 1975. Heterosis effects on weaning performance of Brahman —Shorthorn calves. journal of Animal Science 40: 826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letenneur, L. 1978. Crossbreeding N'Dama and Jersey cattle in Ivory Coast. FAO World Animal Review 27: 36–42.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E. 1985. Crossbreeding in tropical areas with emphasis on milk, health and fitness. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 2418–2435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDowell, R. E., Velasco, J. A., Vleck, L. D. van, Johnson, J. C., Brandt, G. W., Hollon, B. F. and McDanlel, B. T. 1974. Reproductive efficiency of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 57: 220–234.Google Scholar
Montsma, G. 1960. Observations on milk yield and calf growth and conversion rates in three types of cattle in Ghana. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 37: 293–302.Google Scholar
Montsma, G. 1962. Observations of milk yield, calf growth and conversion rate of three types of cattle in Ghana. II. Effects of plane of nutrition. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 39: 123–124.Google Scholar
Ngere, L. O. and Cameron, C. W. 1972. Crossbreeding for increased beef production. I. Performance of crosses between local breeds and either Santa Gertrudis or Red Poll. Ghana Journal of Agriculture Science 5: 43–49.Google Scholar
Ngere, L. O., Hagan, R., Oppong, E. N. W. and Loosli, J. K. 1975. Milking potential of the West African Shorthorn cow. Ghana Journal of Agriculture Science 8: 31–35.Google Scholar
Njubi, D., Rege, J. E. O., Thorpe, W., Collins-Lusweti, E. and Nyambaka, R. 1992. Genetic and environmental variation in reproductive and lactational performance of Jersey cattle in the coastal lowland semi-humid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 24: 231–241.Google Scholar
Sacker, G. D., Trail, S. and Fisher, I. L. 1971. Crossbreeding beef cattle in western Uganda. 6. A note on hybrid vigor in Red Poll-Boran crosses. Animal Production 13: 181–184.Google Scholar
Sharma, B. S. and Pirchner, F. 1991. Heterosis in Friesian × Sahiwal crosses. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108: 241–252.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1987. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. Version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Vohradsky, F. 1970. Preliminary report. Dairy crossbreeding project in cattle. Annual report, University of Ghana, Agricultural Research Station, Nungua, pp. [2–17.Google Scholar