Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:27:16.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of genetic variation for milk production in a crossbred herd in the tropics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. J. Mackinnon ,
W. Thorpe  and
R. L. Baker
M. J. Mackinnon
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, Edinburgh University, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT
W. Thorpe
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
R. L. Baker
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Crossbreeding parameters and variance components were estimated for lactation and reproductive traits of crosses between the Sahiwal, Brown Swiss and Ayrshire breeds in a dairy herd in sub-humid coastal Kenya. An individual animal model urns fitted to the data with a fixed effect for 20 distinct breed crosses. The estimates of breed cross means were then regressed on average breed content, expected average heterozygosity and recombination loss to determine the additive breed contributions, and the contributions of dominance and epistasis to heterosis. It was estimated that the Sahiwal contributed about 1345 kg (proportionally 0·33) less milk per lactation than the Brown Swiss. The Ayrshire was intermediate. The large amount of heterosis from the crosses of the Sahiwal (Bos indicusj and Bos taurus breeds more than compensated for the lower additive value of the Sahiwal when used in a three-breed rotational cross or synthetic. Heterosis amotig Bos taurus breeds was negligible. Estimates of the maternal heterosis and recombination loss (epistasis) were not significant, although the latter were consistently large and positive. It was concluded that the heterosis between the zebu and European breeds was mainly due to dominance effects. Estimates of heritability for milk yield traits were low (around 0·09 to 0·13) compared with other studies, although estimates of repeatability (around 0·29 to 0·33) were similar to results from the literature, indicating that the accuracy of estimated breeding values in this crossbred herd was reduced because of the non-additive genetic effects. The genetic improvement of crossbred herds is discussed.

Keywords

crossbreedingheritabilityheterosismilk productiontropics
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 5 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Abubakar, B. Y., McDowell, R. E., Wellington, K. E. and Van Vleck, L. D. 1986. Estimating genetic values for milk production in the tropics. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahlborn-Breier, G. and Hohenboken, W. D. 1991. Additive and nonadditive genetic effects on milk production in dairy cattle: evidence for major individual heterosis. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 592–602.Google Scholar
Akbas, Y., Brotherstone, S. and Hill, W. G. 1993. Animal model estimation of non-additive genetic parameters in dairy cattle, and their effect on heritability estimation and breeding value prediction. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110:105–113.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
Boer, I. J. M. de and Hoeschele, I. 1993. Genetic evaluation methods for populations with dominance and inbreeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86: 245–258.Google Scholar
Bondoc, O. L., Smith, C. and Gibson, J. P. 1989. A review of breeding strategies for genetic improvement of dairy cattle in developing countries. Animal Breeding Abstracts 57: 821–827.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P., and Syrstad, O. 1987. Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) animal production health paper no. 68. FAO, United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
Elzo, M. A. 1986. Inverse of single trait additive genetic covariance matrix with unequal variances across additive genetic groups. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 569–574.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Fuerst, C. and Soelkner, J. 1994. Additive and nonadditive genetic variances for milk yield, fertility, and lifetime performance traits of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 1114–1125.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1994. Germplasm utilization in beef cattle. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 17, pp. 261–268.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., and Trail, J. C. M. 1981. Rotation crossbreeding with Sahiwal and Ayrshire cattle in the tropics. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 1978–1984.Google Scholar
Hoeschele, I. and Vollema, A. R. 1993. Estimation of variance components with dominance and inbreeding in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinghorn, B. P. 1983. Genetic effects in crossbreeding. 111. Epistatic loss in crossbred mice. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 100: 209–222.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dickerson, G. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1985. Heterosis retained in advanced generations of crosses among Angus and Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1117–1132.Google Scholar
Komender, P. and Hoeschele, I. 1989. Use of mixed-model methodology to improve estimation of crossbreeding parameters. Livestock Production Science 21:101–113.Google Scholar
McAllister, A. J. 1986. The role of crossbreeding in breeding programmes for intensive milk production in temperate climates. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 9, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E. 1972. Improvement of livestock production in warm climates. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E. 1985. Crossbreeding in tropical areas with emphasis on milk, health and fitness. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 2418–2435.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. 1986. Economic evaluation of breeding objectives for milk and beef production in tropical environments. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production vol. 9, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. 1988. A note on the effect of variation of lactation length on the efficiency of tropical cattle selection for milk yield. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 76: 830–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madalena, F. E. 1994. Considering lactation length in tropical dairy cattle breeding. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 20, pp. 328–331.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Lemos, A. D. and Teodoro, R. L. 1992. Consequences of removing the variation in lactation length on the evaluation of dairy cattle breeds and crosses. Revista Brasileira de Genetica 15: 585–593.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Lemos, A. M., Teodoro, R. L., Barbosa, R. T. and Monteiro, J. B. N. 1990a. Dairy production and reproduction in Holstein-Friesian and Guzera crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 73:1872–1886.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Teodoro, R. L., Lemos, A. M., Monteiro, J. B. N. and Barbosa, R. T. 1990b. Evaluation of strategies for crossbreeding of dairy cattle in Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 73:1887–1901.Google Scholar
Madgwick, P. A. and Goddard, M. E. 1989. Comparison of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle for Victoria: estimation of genetic effects for yield. Australian journal of Experimental Agriculture 29: 1–7.Google Scholar
Martinez, M. L., Lee, A. J. and Lin, C. Y. 1988. Age and Zebu-Holstein additive and heterotic effects on lactation performance and reproduction in Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 800–808.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1991. DFREML — a set of programs to estimate variance components by restricted maximum likelihood using a derivative-free algorithm. User notes, version 2.0. Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Meyn, K. and Wilkins, J. V. 1974. Breeding for milk in Kenya, with particular reference to the Sahiwal stud. World Animal Review 11: 24–30.Google Scholar
Olson, T. A., Peacock, F. M. and Koger, M. 1993. Reproductive and maternal performance of rotational, three-breed and inter se crossbred cows in Florida. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2322–2329.Google Scholar
Rege, J. E. O. 1991. Genetic analysis of reproductive and productive performance of Friesian cattle in Kenya. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108: 412–423.Google Scholar
Schneeberger, C. P., Wellington, K. E. and McDowell, R. E. 1982. Performance of Jamaica Hope cattle in commercial dairy herds in Jamaica. Journal of Dairy Science 65:1364–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. K. 1981. Crossbreeding and heterosis. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 131–143.Google Scholar
Swan, A. A., and Kinghorn, B. P. 1992. Evaluation and exploitation of crossbreeding in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 624–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1988. Crossbreeding for increased milk production in the tropics. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science 2: 179–185.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1989. Dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: performance of secondary crossbred populations. Liivstock Production Science 23: 97–106.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1993. Milk yield and lactation length in tropical cattle. World Animal Review 74/75: 68–72.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W., Kang'ethe, P., Rege, J. E. O., Mosi, R. O., Mwandotto, B. A. J. and Njuguna, P. 1993. Crossbreeding Ayrshire, Friesian and Sahiwal cattle for milk and weaner production in the semiarid tropics of Kenya. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 2001–2012.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W., Morris, C. A. and Kang'ethe, P. 1994. Crossbreeding Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, and Sahiwal cattle for annual and lifetime milk production in the lowland tropics of Kenya. Journal Dairy Science 77: 2415–2427.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. 1992. Crossbreeding effects in dairy cattle: the Illinois experiment, 1949 to 1969. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 640–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaccaro, L., Vaccaro, R., Verde, O., Mejias, H., Perez, A., Rios, L. and Romero, E. 1994. An improvement program for tropical dual purpose cattle. Proceedings of the fifth world conference on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 20, pp. 313–318.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, J. H. J. and Boer, W. de. 1989. Influence of nonadditive effects on estimation of genetic parameters in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2606–2614.Google Scholar