Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:54:04.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative evaluation of beef cattle breeds of African, European and Indian origins. 2. Resistance to cattle ticks and gastrointestinal nematodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Frisch  and
C. J. O'Neill
J. E. Frisch
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Production, Tropical Beef Centre, PO Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, Queensland 4702, Australia
C. J. O'Neill
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Production, Tropical Beef Centre, PO Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, Queensland 4702, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Cattle breeds of African, European and Indian origins are being evaluated at Rockhampton for their suitability for beef production in northern Australia. In the current study, Belmont Adaptaur (HS), Belmont Red (AX) and Belmont BX (BX) dams were mated to produce straightbreds, and crossbred progeny by Brahman (B), Boron (Bo) and Tuli (Tu) sires. B dams were mated to produce straightbreds, and crossbred progeny by AX, BX, Bo, Charolais (Ch), HS and Tu sires. All animals were reared together in the presence of cattle ticks and gastrointestinal nematodes (‘worms’). Over a 10-month period, half of each genotype was treated every 3 weeks to control ticks and worms. The resistance of each genotype to these parasites was estimated from direct counts of maturing female ticks (‘tick counts’) and from a combination of worm eggs in fresh faeces (‘worm egg counts’) and response to treatment to control the parasites.

The ranking of the sire breeds for tick resistance was B, Bo > BX > AX, HS, Tu > Ch and for worm resistance was B > Bo, BX > AX, Ch, HS, Tu. Only the B × BX and B × Bo could match the resistance of the B to ticks and worms combined.

All genotypes responded to treatment to control parasites but at the low to moderate levels of infestation recorded throughout the study the response of the more resistant genotypes was too low to warrant the cost of treatment. However, the ranking of the genotypes for live-weight gains changed with parasite challenge. Progeny by B and by Bo bulls from each of the dam breeds had higher live-weight gains than the corresponding straightbreds irrespective of the level of parasite challenge but gains of Tu-sired progeny exceeded those of the corresponding straightbreds only at lower levels of parasite challenge. The difference in resistance between the B and the more resistant F2s was small and even at twice the parasite challenge experienced throughout the study, the Fts would still be expected to outgain the B. For those genotypes for which it was measured, heterosis was consistently significant for live-weight gains and for tick counts but not for worm egg counts. Heterosis for live-weight gain was consistently higher for control than for treated groups. Potential roles of the different breeds for crossbreeding is discussed in relation to the effects of different levels of parasite challenge on growth rates of their progeny.

Keywords

crossbreedinghelminth resistanceheterosistick resistancetropical cattle
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1998 , pp. 39 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Frisch, J. E. 1987. Physiological reasons for heterosis in growth of Bos indicus × Bos taurus. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. 1994. Identification of a major gene for resistance to cattle ticks. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 20, pp. 293–295.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and O'Neill, C. J. 1998. Comparative evaluation of beef cattle breeds of African, European and Indian origins. 1. Live-weights and heterosis at birth, weaning and 18 months. Animal Science 67: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1984. An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R., Frisch, J. E. and Kinghorn, B. P. 1994. Evidence for a major gene for tick resistance in cattle. Proceedings the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 20, pp. 265–268.Google Scholar
Lemos, A. M., Teodoro, R. L., Olivera, G. P. and Madalena, F. E. 1985. Comparative performance of six Holstein-Friesian × Guzera grades in Brazil. 3. Burdens of Boophilus microplus under field conditions. Animal Production 41: 187–191.Google Scholar
Roberts, F. H. S. and O'Sullivan, P. J. 1950. Methods for egg counts and larval cultures for strongyles infecting the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods, seventh edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1992. SAS user's guide, statistics, version 6 edition. SAS First Inc., Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. and Short, A. J. 1972. Effects of field infestations of gastrointestinal helminths and of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) on growth of three breeds of cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 33: 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H., Utech, K. B. W. and Turner, H. G. 1970. Resistance to the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus, in a herd Australian Illawarra Shorthorn cattle: its assessment and heritability. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21: 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar