Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:28:38.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative performance of six Holstein-Friesian × Guzera grades in Brazil 3. Burdens of Boophilus microplus under field conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. M. Lemos ,
R. L. Teodoro ,
G. P. Oliveira  and
F. E. Madalena
A. M. Lemos
Affiliation:
EMBRAPA Project, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Gado de Leite, 36.155 — Coronel Pacheco — MG, Brazil
R. L. Teodoro
Affiliation:
EMBRAPA Project, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Gado de Leite, 36.155 — Coronel Pacheco — MG, Brazil
G. P. Oliveira
Affiliation:
EMBRAPA Project, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Gado de Leite, 36.155 — Coronel Pacheco — MG, Brazil
F. E. Madalena
Affiliation:
EMBRAPA Project, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Gado de Leite, 36.155 — Coronel Pacheco — MG, Brazil
Get access

Abstract

Burdens of ticks (Boophilus microplus) on young and adult females (heifers and cows) of six red-and-white Holstein-Friesian (HF) × Guzera (G) grades were assessed by counting the number of semi-engorged tick females on the right side of the animals. The HF grades were: ¼ ½ ⅝ ¾ ⅞ and ≥ Assessments of tick burdens of heifers were made on twelve occasions (357 observations on 193 animals). Cows were assessed six times (380 observations on 83 animals). Cows and heifers were in different pastures. Data were transformed to log10 (2 × count + 1) to normalize their distribution. Direct breed additive (g1, HF-G) and heterosis (hl) effects were estimated within dates of counting. Estimates of h1 on the log scale were not significant (P > 0·05) on 11 out of 12 dates for heifers and on five out of six dates for cows. Estimates of g1 for heifers varied from 0·505 (s.e. 0·492) to 2·376 (s.e. 0·345) (mean g1 = 1·575 (s.e. 0·096)), and estimates for cows varied between 1·009 (s.e. 0·203) and 2·293 (s.e. 0·219) (mean g1 = 1·416 (s.e. 0·080)). These results indicate the presence of important genetic effects on tick burdens. The means of the untransformed number of ticks per animal were, for the six grades in the above order, respectively: 44, 71, 151, 223, 282 and 501, for heifers, and 7, 19, 31, 64, 62 and 97 for cows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , October 1985 , pp. 187 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

Alexander, G. I., Reason, G. K. and Clark, C. H. 1984. The development of the Australian Friesian Sahiwal — a tick resistant dairy breed. Wld Anim. Rev. 51: 27–34.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 and American Dairy Science Association, Champaign, III.Google Scholar
Francis, J. and Ashton, G. C. 1967. Tick resistance in cattle: its stability and correlation with various genetic characteristics. Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 45: 131–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. R. 1976. Least squares and maximum likelihood general purpose program. Ohio Sta. Univ., Columbus. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hayman, R. H. 1974. The development of the Australian Milking Zebu. Wld Anim. Rev. 11: 31–35.Google Scholar
Lemos, A. M. 1983. [Cattle genetic resistance and tick control.] Doc. CNPGL, Coronet Pacheco-MG. No. 6.Google Scholar
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
Madalena, F. E. 1981. Crossbreeding strategies for dairy cattle in Brazil. Wld Anim. Rev. 38: 23–30.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Llmos, A. M., Teodoro, R. L. and Barbosa, R. T. 1982. Preliminary results on the comparative dairy performance of six Holstein-Friesian: Guzera grades in Brazil. Proc. 2nd Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livesl. Prod., Madrid, Vol. VIII, pp. 218–223.Google Scholar
Madalkna, F. E., Teodoro, R. L., Lemos, A. M. and Oliveira, G. P. 1985. Causes of variation of field burdens of cattle ticks (B. microplus). Rev. Brasil. Genet. In press.Google Scholar
Powell, R. T. and Rlid, T. J. 1982. Project tick control. Qd agric. J. 108: 279–300.Google Scholar
Robison, O. W., McDanikl, B. T. and Rincon, E. J. 1981. Estimation of direct and maternal additive and heterotic effects from crossbreeding experiments in animals. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seiferi, G. W. 1971. Variations between and within breeds of cattle in resistance to field infestations of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus). Aust. J. agric. Res. 22: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherst, R. W. and Utech, K. B. W. 1982. Controlling livestock parasites with host resistance. In CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture (ed. Pimentel, D.), Vol. II, pp. 385–405. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Teodoro, R. L., Lemos, A. M., Barbosa, R. T. and Madalena, F. E. 1984. Comparative performance of six Holstein-Friesian × Guzera grades in Brazil. 2. Traits related to the onset of the sexual function. Anim. Prod. 38: 165–170.Google Scholar
Ulloa, G. and Alba, J. De 1957. [Resistance to external parasites of some cattle breeds]. Turrialba 7: 8–12.Google Scholar
Utech, K. B. W., Wharton, R. H. and Kerr, J. D. 1978. Resistance to Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) in different breeds of cattle. Aust. J. agric. Res. 29: 885–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villares, J. B. 1941. [Zootechnic Climatology. III. Contribution to the study of genetic resistance and susceptibility of cattle to Boophilus microplus.] Bolm ind. Anim., Seo Paulo 4: 60–86.Google Scholar
Wharton, R. H. and Norris, K. R. 1980. Control of parasitic arthropods. Vet. Parasit. 6: 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H., and Utech, K. B. W. 1970. The relation between engorgement and dropping of Boophilus microplus (Canestrini) (Ixodidea) to the assessment of tick numbers on cattle. J. Aust. Entomol. Soc. 9: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H., Utech, K. B. W. and Turner, H. G. 1970. Resistance to the cattle tick. Boophilus microplus, in a herd of Australian Illawarra Shorthorn cattle: its assessment and heritability. Aust. J. agric. Res. 21: 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar