Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:37:45.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance of purebred and crossbred beef cattle in the tropics of Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Duarte-Ortuño ,
W. Thorpe  and
A. Tewolde
A. Duarte-Ortuño
Affiliation:
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, 97100 Mérida, Yucatán, México
W. Thorpe
Affiliation:
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, 97100 Mérida, Yucatán, México
A. Tewolde
Affiliation:
Departmento de Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, 56230 Estado de México, México
Get access

Abstract

Records of beef cows on a ranch in south-east Mexico gave 1377 ages at first calving (AFC) and 3932 calving intervals (CI) for the comparison by least-squares analysis of the genetic groups: commercial zebu (CZ), Brahman, other zebu breeds and their zebu crosses (zebu), F, crosses born to zebu dams by Bos taunts or Santa Gertrudis sires, and 3/4 bred zebu and 3/4 Bos taurus. Subsamples of 1090 ages at first calving and 3154 intervals were analysed considering the breed groups: CZ, Brahman, Guzerat, Gyr and Indo-brazil, and the F1 crosses resulting from matings between these zebu breeds, Santa Gertrudis and Charolais as sire breeds and the CZ as the dam breed. Three populations were analysed for each model, the original ranch population and two populations reduced by retrospective culling. The original population had a mean AFC and CI of 1226 and 489 days respectively reduced by the first and second culling by 24 and 37 days and by 62 and 83 days respectively. Repeatability of CI increased from 0·06 to 0·11 and 0·14 respectively.

Genetic group significantly influenced AFC. In the original population F1 heifers had a significantly younger AFC than Brahman and zebu heifers but not significantly younger than the other genetic groups. Heifers with 0·25, 0·75 and 1·00 zebu genes did not have significantly different AFCs. After the retrospective culling only the 3/4 bred zebus were significantly superior to the worst group, the zebus. The effect of breed group was only significant in the original population but generally the same rank order was maintained after the retrospective culling. F, Charolais × CZ heifers had the youngest AFC, a superiority of 67 days over CZ and 92 days over Brahman. Purebred zebus and their F, crosses with CZ did not calve earlier than CZ dams. Genetic group had a highly significant effect on CI. Females with 0·50 and 0·75 Bos taurus genes had shorter CIs than females with 0·75 and 1·00 zebu genes. The superiority was maintained after culling. Breed group had a significant effect in each population. F1 Charolais × CZ dams had the shortest CI. CZ had equivalent or shorter CI than all zebu breeds and their F1 crosses with CZ. Heterosis effects for AFC and CI in the zebu crosses were generally advantageous but small, while the heritabilities for the zebu population were negative for AFC and 0·05, 0·22 and 0·06 for CI in the original and two culled populations respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 11 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Dickerson, G. E. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstracts 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
Dickey, J. R. and Cartwright, T. C. 1966. Reproduction in tropically adapted beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 25: 251 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Escobar, J., Fernandez-Baca, S., Galina, C. S., Berruecos, J. M. and Saltiel, A. 1982. A study of calving interval in beef cattle in a highland unit and in another in the humid tropics zone. Veterinaria, Mexico 13: 53–60.Google Scholar
Eversbusch, J. C. 1978. Indices reproductivos en un hato de ganado Charolais comparado con Cebu (raza Brahman) y sus cruzas en el tropico mexicano. Veterinaria, Mexico 9: 225–226.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organisation. 1972. La clasificacion de los suelos. Boletin de Suelos de la FAO No. 48. Roma, Italia.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]. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, Brasilia 15: 101–105.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Trail, J. C. M., Sandford, J. and Durkin, J. 1984. Crossbreeding cattle in beef production programmes in Kenya. 1. Comparison of purebred Boran and Boran crossed with the Charolais, Ayrshire and Santa Gertrudis breeds. Tropical Animal Health and Production 16: 181–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, W. R. 1976. User's guide for least squares and maximum likelihood general purpose program. Ohio State University, Columbus (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hinojosa, A., Franco, A. and Bolio, L. 1980. Genetic and environmental factors affecting calving interval in a commercial beef herd in a semi-humid tropical environment. Tropical Animal Production 5: 165–171.Google Scholar
Koger, M. 1973. Summary. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle, Series 2 (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C.), pp. 434–447. University of Florida Press, Gainsville, Fla.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., Amezquita, M. C. and Hohenboken, W. D. 1980. Relationship of live weight to calving rate of grade zebu heifers and cows on the Eastern Plains of Columbia. Journal of Animal Science 50: 1040–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linares, T., Plasse, D., Cevallos, E., Ocanto, D., Verde, O., Gonzales, M., Aguirre, L., Chico, C., Pena De Borsotti, N., Frømeta, L. and Rios, J. 1981. Reproductive efficiency of eight breed groups of beef cows mated with five sire breeds on the Venezuelan Llanos. Memoria Asociacion Latinoamericana de Production Animal 16: 145–146.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. and Hinojosa, A. 1976. Reproductive performance of Zebu compared with Charolais × Zebu females in a humid tropical environment. Animal Production 23: 55–62.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, P., Harricharan, H. and Springer, B. G. F. 1972. The performance of Santa Gertrudis, Sahiwal, Brahman and crossbred animals in the intermediate savannahs of Guyana. 1. General. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79: 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milagres, J. C., Dillard, E. U. and Robison, O. W. 1979. Heritability estimates for some measures of reproduction in Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 49: 668–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nodot, P., Olson, T., Koger, M. and Hargrove, D. 1981. Reproductive performance of Indo-brazil females in Mexico. Memoria Asociacion Latinoamericana de Production Animal 16: 145–146.Google Scholar
Pena De Borsotti, N., Verde, O. and Plasse, D. 1979. Repeatability of calving intervals in Brahman cows. Journal of Animal Science 49: 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plasse, D. 1983. Crossbreeding results from beef cattle i n the Latin American tropics. Animal Breeding Abstracts 51: 779–797.Google Scholar
Plasse, D., Warnick, A. C. and Koger, M. 1968. Reproductive behaviour of Bos indicus females in a subtropical environment. 1. Puberty and ovulation frequency in Brahman and Brahman × British heifers. Journal of Animal Science 27: 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1985. Heterosis in Bos taurus × Bos indicus crosses. Livestock Production Science 12: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle 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. Animal Production 38: 165–170.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. and Willis, M. B. 1974. Comparative reproductive performance of Brahman and Santa Gertrudis cattle in a hot humid environment. 2. Factors affecting calving interval. Animal Production 18: 43–48.Google Scholar