Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:29:03.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive traits of Angus, Criollo and reciprocal crossbred females in the temperate area of Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. M. Corva ,
E. L. Villarreal ,
C. A. Mezzadra  and
L. M. Melucci
P. M. Corva
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias de Balcarce, Universidad National de Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correo 276, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
E. L. Villarreal
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, Instituto National de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA), Casilla de Correo 276, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
C. A. Mezzadra
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, Instituto National de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA), Casilla de Correo 276, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
L. M. Melucci
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias de Balcarce, Universidad National de Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correo 276, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
Get access

Abstract

Reproductive performance of purebred Angus (A) and Criollo (C) cows and crossbred CA and AC cows in the temperate area of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was assessed through the study of reproductive rates, calving date, first insemination date, number of inseminations and weight related variables. The herd was grazed on pastures all year round. Matings were by artificial insemination with visual oestrus detection, from October to December. Heifers first calving was at 3 years of age. All traits were analysed with general linear models including, as corresponded, fixed effects of dam and calf genetic groups, calving year and month, dam physiological status, calving age and first order interactions. Female genetic group adjusted means were used to estimate direct (gl) and maternal (gM) breed differences and heterosis (hl) effects on reproductive traits. Weaning rate was mostly determined by oestrons detection rate. Due to the inhibitory effects of nursing on reproduction, female genetic group effects were significant for suckling cows only: mean oestrous detection rate was higher (P < 0·05) for crossbred cows (AC: 91·2 (s.e. 5-1) %; CA: 88·4 (s.e. 2·9) %) than for A (76·3 (s.e. 2·0) %) and C (49·9 (s.e. 3·3) %); direct breed effects favoured A (glA - g1c = 26·4 (s.e. 3·7) %; P < 0·001) and h1 was 26·7 (s.e. 3·4) % (P < 0·001). When only oestrous-detected cows were considered, direct breed effects were significant only for pregnancy rate fg1A —g1c = 8·5 (s.e. 4·4) %) whereas h1 was significant for pregnancy (8·3 (s.e. 3·8) %), calving (9·3 (s.e. 4·1) %) and weaning (10·1 (s.e. 4·1) %) rates (P < 0·05). Criollo cows calved later than crossbred (≍19 days) and A (≍15 days) cows mainly due to longer post-partum anoestrous. For calving date, direct breed effects favoured A (g1A — g1c = 20·8 (s.e. 5·9) days; P <0·0·001) and h1 was 11·4 (s.e. 2·8) days (P < 0·001). Low reproductive performance in C was not associated with live iveight at the beginning of mating. This genetic group was the latest in showing oestrous behaviour, even when not suckling. Number of inseminations was similar for the four genetic groups. These results sustain the principle of utilizing Fl Criollo-Angus cows to improve beef herd productivity, whereas they do not support the recommendation of using purebred Criollo females under this type of production system.

Keywords

beef cowsbreed differencescrossbreedingheterosisreproductive traits
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 241 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Bodisco, V. and Abreu, O. 1981. [Milk production of pure Criollo cows.] In Recursos geneticos animates en Amèrica Latina (ed. Muller-Haye, B. and Gelman, J.), Estudios FAO en production y sanidad animal, no 22, pp. 17–39.Google Scholar
Carrillo, J., Bustamante, J. L. and Cano, A. 1982. [Cow body weight at “Reserva 6” Unit (10 years of data). I. Annual evolution of the average body weight of cows.] Production Animal (AAPA-Argentina) 9: 299–307.Google Scholar
Corva, P. M., Villarreal, E. L., Mezzadra, C. A. and Melucci, L. M. 1992a. [Reproductive efficiency in Angus, Criollo and crossbred cattle. 2. Components of calving interval]. Revista Argentina de Production Animal 12: supp. 1, p. 87 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Corva, P. M., Villarreal, E. L., Mezzadra, C. A. and Melucci, L. M. 1992b. [Reproductive efficiency in Angus, Criollo and crossbred cattle. 3. Maternal ability.] Revista Argentina de Production Animal 12: supp. 1, p. 87 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1974. Effects of heterosis on reproduction in Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38: 711–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dearborn, D. D., Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1987. Maternal heterosis and grandmaternal effects in beef cattle: preweaning traits, journal of Animal Science 65: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dziuk, P. J. and Bellows, R. A. 1983. Management of reproduction of beef cattle, sheep and pigs, journal of Animal Science 57: suppl. 2, pp. 355–379.Google Scholar
Fumagalli, A. E. 1993. [Results of Criollo Cattle production in the semiarid chaqueno wood.] In Conservation y mejoramiento del Ganado Bovino Criollo (ed. Puignau, J. P.), pp. 17–24. Dialogo XXXVI, IICA PROCISUR, Montevideo, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1982. Least-square means analysis of discrete data. Journal of Animal Science 54: 1067–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, C. G. 1980. Physiological effects of selection for milk yield. In Selection experiments in laboratory and domestic animals (ed. Robertson, A.), pp. 198–211. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Holgado, F. D. and Sal Paz, A. R. de. 1985. [Breeding herd production in the Criollo-Nelore cross.] Revista Argentina de Production Animal 5: 707–711.Google Scholar
Long, C. R. 1980. Crossbreeding for best production: experimental results, journal of Animal Science 51: 1197–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, R. C. 1984. Two breeding schemes for estimation of heterosis and recombination effects. Livestock Production Science 11: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, D. G. 1986. Analytical methods for binary response data. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 16: 70–71.Google Scholar
Mezzadra, C. A., Homse, A., Sampedro, D. and Alberio, R. 1993. Pubertal traits and seasonal variation of the sexual activity in Brahman, Hereford and crossbred heifers. Theriogenology 40: 987–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mezzadra, C. A. and Miquel, M. C. 1983. [Pelvic dimensions and their correlation with other body measurements in Angus and Criollo breeds.] Revista Argentina de Production Animal 3: 458–468.Google Scholar
Mezzadra, C. A. and Miquel, M. C. 1994. Heterosis and breed transmitted effects in growth curve parameters in Angus, Criollo and reciprocal crossbred cows. Proceedings of the fifth congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, Canada, vol. 17, pp. 276–279.Google Scholar
Miquel, M. C. 1987. [Evaluation of hardy breeds: objectives, design and preliminary results.] Revista Argentina de Production Animal 7: 265–270.Google Scholar
Miquel, M. C. and Villarreal, E. L. 1981. [Weight and body measurements of calves of different breeds and crosses at birth.] Production Animal (AAPA, Argentina) 8: 287–293.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Johnson, D. L., Carter, A. H. and Hunter, J. C. 1987. 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
Neville, W. E., Richardson, K. L., Williams, D. J. and Utley, P. R. 1987. Cow breeding and calf growth performance as affected by pregnancy status the previous year, journal of Animal Science 65: 345–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notter, D. R., Cundiff, L. V., Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B. and Gregory, K. E. 1978. Characterization of biological types of cattle. VII. Milk production in young cows and transmitted and maternal effects on preweaning growth of progeny. Journal of Animal Science 46: 908–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numan, M. 1988. Maternal behaviour. In The physiology of reproduction (ed. Knobil, E. and Neill, J.), pp. 1569–1645. Raven Press, New York.Google Scholar
O'Farrell, K. J. 1988. [Oestral behaviour, detection problems and importance of duration of cycles.] Therios (Argentina) Suplemento especial No 2, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. J., Bellows, R. A., Burfening, P. J. and Carr, J. B. 1987. Occurrence of neonatal and postnatal mortality in range beef cattle. 1. Calf loss incidence from birth to weaning, backward and breech presentations and effects of calf loss on subsequent pregnancy rates of dams. Thenogenology 28: 557–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peacock, F. M. and Koger, M. 1980. Reproductive performance of Angus, Brahman, Charolais and crossbred dams, journal of Animal Science 50: 689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. R. and Riley, G. M. 1982. Is the cow a seasonal breeder? British Veterinary journal 138: 533–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plasse, D. 1988. Results from crossbreeding Bos taurus and Bos indicus in Tropical Latin America. Proceedings of the third world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Paris, vol. 2, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
Sal Paz, F. 1986. [The Criollo Argentino cattle: history, characteristics and productivity.] In Ganado Bovino Criollo (ed. Subcomite Asesor del Arido Subtropical Argentino), pp. 3–7. Orientacion Grafica Editora, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Short, R. E., Bellows, R. A., Staigmiller, R. B., Berardinelli, J. G. and Custer, E. E. 1990. Physiological mechanisms controlling anestrus and infertility in postpartum beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68: 799–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slobodzian, A. 1992. [Direct breed effects and individual heterosis estimates for growth traits up to 21 months in Aberdeen Angus-Criollo crossbred steers.] Tesis magister scientiae, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Balcarce, Argentina.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1988. User's guide release 6.03 edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tortonese, D. J. 1986. [Determination of age at puberty through progesterone radio-immuno assay in four genetic groups of cattle. Correlation with weight and height.] Tesis doctoral, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, La Plata, Argentina.Google Scholar
Wilkins, J. V. 1993. [Genetic excellence of cattle in Latin America and its special problems.] In Conservacion y mejoramiento del Ganado Bovino (ed. Puignau, J. P.), pp. 83–94. Dialogo XXXVI, IICA PROCISUR, Montevideo, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Williams, G. L. 1990. Suckling as a regulator of postpartum rebreeding in cattle: a review, journal of Animal Science 68: 831–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, I. A., Rhind, S. M., Whyte, T. K. and Smith, A. J. 1992. Effects of body condition at calving and feeding level after calving on LH profiles and the duration of the post-partum anoestrus period in beef cows. Animal Production 55: 41–46.Google Scholar