Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:35:13.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Performance of Six Holstein-Friesian × Guzera grades in Brazil 2. Traits related to the onset of the sexual function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. L. Teodoro ,
A. M. Lemos ,
R. T. Barbosa  and
F. E. Madalena
R. L. Teodoro
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa — Gado de Leite, 36 155 Coronel Pacheco-MG, Brazil
A. M. Lemos
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa — Gado de Leite, 36 155 Coronel Pacheco-MG, Brazil
R. T. Barbosa
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa — Gado de Leite, 36 155 Coronel Pacheco-MG, Brazil
F. E. Madalena
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa — Gado de Leite, 36 155 Coronel Pacheco-MG, Brazil
Get access

Abstract

Age and weight at puberty, age at first conception and number of services per conception of 90 females at Santa Monica Experimental Station, Valencia, State of Rio de Janeiro, were studied. The females were of six red and white Holstein-Friesian (HF) × Guzera (G) grades: 1/4, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8 and ≥ 31/32.

A model (1) including the effects of grade and season of birth resulted in the following least-squares means for the six grades in the above order (± s.e.): age at puberty, 770 (± 17), 725 (± 18), 799 (± 26), 788 (± 23), 777 (± 17) and 803 (± 24) days; weight at puberty, 309 (± 8), 334 (± 9), 316 (± 13), 311 (± 11), 303 ((± 9) and 298 (± 12) kg; age at conception, 865 (± 19), 773 (± 19), 867 (± 31), 808 (± 25), 852 (± 22) and 837 (± 25) days; number of services per conception, 1·9 (± 0·2), 1·7 (± 0·2), 1·5 (± 0·3), 11 (± 0·2), 1·6 (+ 0·2) and 1·3 (± 0·2).

A second model (2) was fitted, including the effects of season of birth, direct (g1) breed additive effects (HF - G) and heterosis effects (hl). g1 and h1 were estimated by the partial regression coefficient of the traits studied on, respectively, the expected HF gene frequency and the expected heterozygosity of the females. The estimates of g7 were not significantly different from zero except for age at first conception (g7 = -102 (s.e. 46) days) (P < 0·05). Heterosis effects were significant for age at puberty (h1 = -86 (s.e. 34) days), weight at puberty (h1 = 44 (s.e. 17) kg) and age at first conception (h1 = —119 (s.e. 37) days). These three estimates of h1 amounted, respectively to —0106, 0151 and —0·132 of the estimated mean of the parental breeds.

F-tests on the extra variation due to fitting model 1 after model 2 were not significant (P < 0·05) indicating that epistasis or other genetic effects, not included in model 2, were of little importance for the traits studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 165 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

REFERENCES

Barlow, R. 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 49: 715–737.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1973. Inbreeding and heterosis in animals. Proc. Anim. Breed. Genet. Symp. in Honor of Dr J. L. Lush, pp. 54–57. American Society of Animal Science, Champaign, Ill.Google Scholar
Freitas, A. F., Madalena, F. E. and Martinez, M. L. 1980. [Age at first calving and calving interval of Holstein-Friesian and crossbred Holstein-Friesian: Gir cows] Pesq. Agrop. Bras., Brasilia 15: 101–105.Google Scholar
Gianola, D. 1980. Confidence intervals for ratios of linear functions of mixed models with reference to animal breeding data. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M. and Smith, G. M. 1978. Heterosis and breed maternal and, transmitted effects in beef cattle. II. Growth rate and puberty in females. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 1042–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V., Smith, G. M. and Koch, R. M. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle — Cycle III. II. Growth rate and puberty in females. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1972. User's guide for least squares and maximum likelihood general purpose program. Ohio State University, Columbus (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Laster, D. B., Glimp, H. A. and Gregory, K. E. 1972. Age and weight at puberty and conception in different breeds and breed-crosses of beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 34: 1031–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laster, D. B., Smith, G. M., Cundiff, L V. and Gregory, K. E. 1979. Characterization of biological types of cattle (Cycle II). II. Postweaning growth and puberty of heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 500–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laster, D. B., Smith, G. M. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. IV. Postweaning growth and puberty of heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 63–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemos, A. M., Teodoro, R. L., Barbosa, R. T., Freitas, A. F. and Madalena, F. E. 1984. Comparative performance of six Holstein-Friesian × Guzera grades in Brazil. 1. Gestation length and birth weight. Anim. Prod. 38: 157–164.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Fletcher, J. L. and Johnson, J. C. 1959. Gestation length, birth weight and age at first calving of crossbred cattle with varying amounts of Red Sindhi and Jersey breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 1430–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madalena, F. E. 1981. Crossbreeding strategies for dairy cattle in Brazil. Wld Anim. Rev. 38: 23–30.Google Scholar
Rakha, A. M., Hale, D. and Igboeli, G. 1970. The age of puberty in local breeds of cattle in Central Africa. J. Reprod. & Fert. 22: 369–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, W. L., De rouen, T. M. and High, J. W. Jr. 1963. The age and weight at puberty of Angus, Braman and Zebu cross heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 22: 243–244 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Robison, O. W., McDaniel, B. T. and Rincòn, E. M. 1981. Estimation of direct and maternal additive and heterotic effects from crossbreeding experiments in animals. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheffè, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. K. 1981. Crossbreeding and heterosis. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 49: 131–144.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. S., Long, C. R. and Cartwright, T. C. 1980. Characterization of cattle of a five-breed diallel. III. Puberty in bulls and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 808–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltbank, J. N., Gregory, K. E., Swiger, R. L. A., Ingalls, J. E., Rothlisberger, J. A. and Koch, R. M. 1966. Effects of heterosis on age and weight at puberty in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 744–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltbank, J. N., Kasson, C. W. and Ingalls, J. E. 1969. Puberty in crossbred and straightbred beef heifers on two levels of feed. J. Anim. Sci. 29: 602–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar