Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:01:25.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic analyses of cow lifetime production up to 12 mating years in crossbred beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. A. Morris ,
R. L. Baker ,
N. G. Cullen ,
S. M. Hickey  and
J. A. Wilson
C. A. Morris
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
R. L. Baker
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
N. G. Cullen
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
S. M. Hickey
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. A. Wilson
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

A total of 1088 females of 14 breed groups (Angus and Hereford purebreds, and 12 first-cross groups) were evaluated over two locations for lifetime survival, numbers of calvings, numbers of calves weaned and cow lifetime records of calf survival. These traits are known to be related to a cow's lifetime productivity. The animals were part of the Ruakura Beef Breed Evaluation, designed to compare the growth and carcasses of steers, and the reproductive and maternal performance of females of different breed groups. Data were from 4 birth years of females and 11 breed-groups at location 1, and from 5 and 10 respectively at location 2, with seven breed-groups common to both locations. Females were first mated as yearlings. Culling at ages 2·5 to 4·5 years was based mainly on females that were non-pregnant on two occasions, whereas in subsequent years any non-pregnant female was culled. At location 1, there was a maximum possible number of mating years of 22 for females in the 1st birth year, declining to a maximum of 9 for those in the 4th birth year; for each age group at location 2 there was a maximum of 9 mating years. The average cow survival (number of mating years) was 7·26 (s.d. 3·02) at location 1 and 5·81 (s.d. 2·31) at location 2, with a coefficient of variation similar at both locations and averaging 0·41. The performances from the poorest to the best breed groups had a 1·5-fold range for number of mating years and a 1·8-fold range for number of calvings and number of calves weaned. The heritability of number of mating years (no. = 150 sire groups) was 0·13 (s.e. 0·08), number ofcalvings 0·11 (s.e. 0·08), number of calves weaned 0·15 (s.e. 0·08), and calf survival as a cow trait 0·027 (s.e. 0·018). This last heritability increased to 0·093 if adjustment was made to the underlying liability scale. There was no significant effect of breed of cow on number of mating years, nor on number of calves weaned per 100 calvings at either location, whilst the effect was significant for number ofcalvings and for number of calves weaned per cow (P < 0·10). The wide breed variation pointed to opportunities for selection among breeds, whilst the low heritabilities suggested that within-breed selection will be slow unless early indicator traits can be found.

Keywords

beef cattlebreedscrossbreedingproductive lifesurvival
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Arthur, P. F. and Makarechian, M. 1992. Heritability estimates and correlations among lifetime production traits measured early in life in beef cattle. Proceedings of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 10: 400–403.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. M. 1990. Life span of beef-type Bos taurus and Bos indicus × Bos taurus females in a dry, temperate climate. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2379–2386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H., Morris, C. A. and Johnson, D. L. 1990. Evaluation of eleven cattle breeds for crossbred beef production: performance of progeny up to 13 months of age. Animal Production 50: 63–77.Google Scholar
Fredeen, H. T., Weiss, G. M., Lawson, J. E., Newman, J. A. and Rahnefeld, G. W. 1981. Lifetime reproductive efficiency of first-cross beef cows under contrasting environments. Canadian journal of Animal Science 61: 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. 1982. The use of teat-size measurements or calf weaning weight as an aid to selection against teat defects in cattle. Animal Production 35:127–133.Google Scholar
Gaines, J. A., McClure, W. H., Hagerbaumer, J. M. and Butts, W. T. 1985. Lifetime weaning performance in a herd of straightbred and crossbred cows. Journal of Animal Science 61: suppl. 1, pp. 232–233 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, H., Darnell, R. and Barlow, R. 1985. Effect of breed on cow wastage. Proceedings of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 5:162–164.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1988. Statistical package: Genstat 5, release 1.3. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. E., Mohler, M. A. and Stewart, T. S. 1984. Relationship of lifetime productivity with mature weight and maturation rate in Red Poll cows. Animal Production 39: 383–387.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Bass, J. J. and Johnson, D. L. 1985. A note on the Charolais and Murray Grey as terminal sire breeds. Animal Production 41: 249–252.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hickey, S. M., Johnson, D. L., Cullen, N. G. and Wilson, J. A. 1993. Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle. Animal Production 56: 69–83.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Johnson, D. L., Carter, A. H. and Hunter, J. C. 1987a. Reciprocal crossbreeding of Angus and Hereford cattle. 3. Cow weight, reproduction, maternal performance, and lifetime production. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Wilson, J. A. and Jones, K. R. 1987b. Effects of eleven dam breed-types and six terminal sire breeds on beef carcass characteristics. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 469–476.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Jones, K. R., Wilson, J. A. and Watson, T. G. 1992. Comparison of the Brahman and Friesian breeds as sires for beef production in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, S. and Deland, M. P. 1991. Lifetime productivity of crossbred cows. 2. Age and weight at first oestrus, calf birth weight, assisted calvings, calving interval and reproduction rate. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunez-Dominguez, R., Cundiff, L. V., Dickerson, G. E., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1991. Heterosis for survival and dentition in Hereford, Angus, Shorthorn, and crossbred cows. Journal of Animal Science 69:1885–1898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, G. A., Baker, J. F., Long, C. R. and Cartwright, T. C. 1988. Productive longevity of first-cross cows produced in a five-breed diallel. 1. Reasons for removal. Journal of Animal Science 66: 2826–2835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, T. S. and Martin, T. G. 1981. Mature weight, maturation rate, maternal performance and their interrelationships in purebred and crossbred cows of Angus and Milking Shorthorn parentage, journal of Animal Science 52: 51–56.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. S. and Martin, T. G. 1983. Optimal mature size of Angus cows for maximum cow productivity. Animal Production 37:179–182.Google Scholar
Tanida, H., Hohenboken, W. D. and DeNise, S. K. 1988. Genetic aspects of longevity in Angus and Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 66: 640–647.Google Scholar
Weise, J. F., Marlowe, T. J. and Notter, D. R. 1985. Lifetime reproductive efficiency and culling history in crossbred cows. Journal of Animal Science 61: suppl. 1, p. 233 (abstr.).Google Scholar