Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:35:51.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sahiwal cattle in Pakistan: genetic and environmental causes of variation in body weight and reproduction and their relationship to milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

U. N. Khan
Affiliation:
Animal Production Institute, National Agricultural Research Centre, Islamabad 45500, Pakistan
A. Dahlin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
A. H. Zafar
Affiliation:
Livestock Production Research Institute, Bahadurnagar, Okara, Pakistan
M. Saleem
Affiliation:
Livestock Production Research Institute, Bahadurnagar, Okara, Pakistan
M. A. Chaudhry
Affiliation:
Livestock Production Research Institute, Bahadurnagar, Okara, Pakistan
J. Philipsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

The influence of genetic and environmental factors on body weight and reproduction and their relationship to milk production traits, were studied in data of about 4700 Sahiwal cows from Pakistan. (Co)variance components were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) procedure based on the expectation maximization algorithm applying an animal model. Mean weights of females were: at birth, 21·6 kg; at 1 year, 130 kg; and at 2 years, 222 kg. Records of age at calving, cow weight post partum and calving interval were studied in the first three parities, with parities considered as different traits. For primiparous cows the average values of these traits were: 44·1 months, 319 kg and 465 days, respectively. Mean stillbirth rate was 5·3%. Heritabilities ranged for body weight traits from 0·08 to 0·21, for age at calving from 0·10 to 0·13 and for calving interval from 0·03 to 0·07. Genetic correlations of age at first calving with calving interval and 305-day milk yield were low. The genetic correlation between 305-day milk yield and calving interval was positive (unfavourable) in first parity (0·68) but negative in the third (-0·47). Cows with a high genetic value for 305-day milk yield were heavier at first calving than were low-yielding cows (rg 0·57). The genetic change in reproductive traits over the period studied was close to zero, whereas a marked deterioration was found in phenotypic performance. It is concluded that improved feeding and management, along with some selection against poor reproduction in cows, are important for improvement of reproductive performance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Ahlborn, G. and Dempfle, L. 1992. Genetic parameters for milk production and body size in New Zealand Holstein-Friesian and Jersey. Livestock Production Science 31: 205219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendonk, J. A. M. van, Hovenier, R. and Boer, W. de. 1989. Phenotypic and genetic association between fertility and production in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 21: 14.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, M. Z., Rasool, G. and Ahmed, M. 1989. Studies on growth rate and feed efficiency in Sahiwal cattle and its crossbred with Holstein Friesian. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 9: 130133.Google Scholar
Coulon, J. B., Pérochon, L. and Lescourret, F. 1995. Modelling the effect of the stage of pregnancy on dairy cows’ milk yield. Animal Science 60: 401408.Google Scholar
Dahlin, A., Khan, U. N., Zafar, A. H., Saleem, M., Chaudhry, M. A. and Philipsson, J. 1995. Population structure of the Sahiwal breed in Pakistan. Animal Science 60: 163168.Google Scholar
Dahlin, A., Khan, U. N., Zafar, A. H., Saleem, M., Chaudhry, M. A. and Philipsson, J. 1998. Genetic and environmental causes of variation in milk production traits of Sahiwal cattle in Pakistan. Animal Science 66: 307318.Google Scholar
Danell, B. 1982. Studies on lactation yield and individual test-day yields of Swedish dairy cows. I. Environmental influence and development of adjustment factors. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 32: 6581.Google Scholar
Davis, G. P. 1993. Genetic parameters for tropical beef cattle in northern Australia: a review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 44: 179198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A. E. 1984. Secondary traits: sire evaluation and the reproductive complex. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 449458.Google Scholar
Galina, C. S. and Arthur, G. H. 1989. Review of cattle reproduction in the tropics. 2. Parturition and calving intervals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 57: 679686.Google Scholar
Gianola, D. and Foulley, J. L. 1983. Sire evaluation for ordered categorical data with a threshold model. Génétique, Sélection, Evolution 15: 201224.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E. and Kovac, M. 1990. A generalized computing procedure for setting up and solving mixed linear models. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 513531.Google Scholar
Hagger, C. and Hofer, A. 1990. Genetic analyses of calving traits in the Swiss Black and White, Braunvieh and Simmental breeds by REML and MAPP procedures. Livestock Production Science 24: 93107.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. B., Freeman, A. E. and Berger, P. J. 1983. Yield and fertility relationships in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 293305.Google Scholar
Hietanen, H. and Ojala, M. 1995. Factors affecting body weight and its association with milk production traits in Finnish Ayrshire and Friesian cows. Ada Agriculturæ Scandinavica 45: 1725.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J., Lugt, A. W. van der, Werf, J. H. J. van der and Ouweltjes, W. 1994. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for milk production and fertility traits in upgraded dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 40: 225232.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. and Madsen, P. 1994. DMU: a package for the analysis of multi variate mixed models. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 22, pp. 4546.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., Mäntysaari, E. A., Madsen, P. and Thompson, R. 1996-97. Residual maximum likelihood estimation of (co)variance components in multivariate mixed linear models using average information. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics 49: (Golden Jubileum no.) 215236.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L., Lamoreux, W. F. and Hazel, L. N. 1948. The heritability of resistance to death in the fowl. Poultry Science 27: 375388.Google Scholar
Maule, J. P. 1990. The cattle of the tropics. University of Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Meijering, A. 1985. Sire evaluation for calving traits by Best Linear Unbiased Prediction and nonlinear methodology. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 102: 95105.Google Scholar
Mohy-ud-Din, G., Gill, R. A., Ahmad, Z., Gondal, K. Z., Yaqoob, M., Ahmad, F. and Mustafa, M. I. 1993. Survival rate and culling pattern in Sahiwal cattle. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 13: 2628.Google Scholar
Moore, R. K., Kennedy, B. W., Schaeffer, L. R. and Moxley, J. E. 1990. Relationships between reproduction traits, age and body weight at calving and days dry in first lactation Ayrshires and Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 835842.Google Scholar
Moore, R. K., Kennedy, B. W., Schaeffer, L. R. and Moxley, J. E. 1991. Relationships between age and body weight at calving and production in first lactation Ayrshires and Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 269278.Google Scholar
Mukasa-Mugerwa, E. 1989. A review of reproductive performance of female Bos indicus (zebu) cattle. ILCA monograph no. 6. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Mwandotto, B. A. J. 1994. Phenotypic, genetic and environmental parameter estimates of weight, growth and maturing patterns in Sahiwal females. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 42: 6167.Google Scholar
Mwandotto, B. A. J., Carles, A. B. and Cartwright, T. C. 1988. Weaning and 18-month weights of Boran, East African Shorthorn Zebu and Sahiwal breeds or crosses in Kenya. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 65: 257264.Google Scholar
Owens, F. N., Dubeski, P. and Hanson, C. F. 1993. Factors that alter the growth and development of ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 71: 31383150.Google Scholar
Poso, J. and Mäntysaari, E. A. 1996. Genetic relationships between reproductive disorders, operational days open and milk yield. Livestock Production Science 46: 4148.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. M. and Nagarcenkar, R. 1989. Inheritance of first lactation traits in Sahiwal cattle. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 42: 382383.Google Scholar
Rege, J. E. O. 1991. Genetic analysis of reproductive and productive performance of Friesian cattle in Kenya. I. Genetic and phenotypic parameters. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108: 412423.Google Scholar
Rege, J. E. O., Lomóle, M. A. and Wakhungu, J. W. 1992. An evaluation of a long-term breeding programme in a closed Sahiwal herd in Kenya. I. Effects of non-genetic factors on performance and genetic parameter estimates. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 109: 364373.Google Scholar
Short, T. H., Blake, R. W., Quaas, R. L. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1990. Heterogeneous within-herd variance. 2. Genetic relationships between milk yield and calving interval in grade Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 33213329.Google Scholar
Strandberg, E. and Danell, B. 1989. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for production and days open in the first three lactations of Swedish dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 39: 203215.Google Scholar
Talbott, C. W., Chaudhry, M. Z., McDowell, R. E. and McDaniel, B. T. 1993. Potential to increase milk production in tropical areas. The Sahiwal model. Fourteenth annual report 1992-93, Livestock Production Research Institute, Bahadurnagar, Okara, Pakistan, pp.2844.Google Scholar
Yerex, R. P., Young, C. W., Donker, J. D. and Marx, G. D. 1988. Effects of selection for body size on feed efficiency and size of Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 13551360.Google Scholar