Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:56:02.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of pure Holsteins to crossbred Holsteins with Norwegian Red cattle in first and second generations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2016

E. Ezra ,
M. Van Straten  and
J. I. Weller
E. Ezra
Affiliation:
Israel Cattle Breeders Association, Caesaria Industrial Park 38900, Israel
M. Van Straten
Affiliation:
Hachaklait, Caesaria Industrial Park 38900, Israel
J. I. Weller*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Sciences, ARO, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A total of 1922 first generation crossbred cows born between 2005 and 2012 produced by inseminating purebred Israeli Holstein cows with Norwegian Red semen, and 7487 purebred Israeli Holstein cows of the same age in the same 50 herds were analyzed for production, calving traits, fertility, calving diseases, body condition score, abortion rate and survival under intensive commercial management conditions. Holstein cows were higher than crossbreds for 305-day milk, fat and protein production. Differences were 764, 1244, 1231 for kg milk; 23.4, 37.4, 35.6 for kg fat, and 16.7, 29.8, 29.8 for kg protein; for parities 1 through 3. Differences for fat concentration were not significant; while crossbred cows were higher for protein concentration by 0.06% to 0.08%. Differences for somatic cells counts were not significant. Milk production persistency was higher for Holstein cows by 5, 8.3 and 8% in parities 1 through 3. Crossbred cows were higher for conception status by 3.1, 3.6 and 4.7% in parities 1 through 3. Rates of metritis for Holsteins were higher than the crossbred cows by 7.8, 4.6 and 3.4% in parities 1 to 3. Differences for incidence of abortion, dystocia, ketosis and milk fever were not significant. Holstein cows were lower than crossbred cows for body condition score for all three parities, with differences of 0.2 to 0.4 units. Contrary to comparisons in other countries, herd-life was higher for Holsteins by 79 days. A total of 6321 Holstein cows born between 2007 and 2011 were higher than 765 progeny of crossbred cows backcrossed to Israeli Holsteins of the same ages for milk, fat and protein production. Differences were 279, 537, 542 kg milk; 10.5, 17.7, 17.0 kg fat and 6.2, 12.9, 13.2 kg protein for parities 1 through 3. Differences for fat concentration were not significant, while backcross cows were higher for protein percentage by 0.02% to 0.04%. The differences for somatic cell score, conception rate, and calving diseases other than metritis, were not significant. Holstein cows were lower than backcross cows by 1.5% to 2.5% for conception status in parities 1 to 3 and lower for body condition score for parities 1 and 2, with differences in the range of 0.06 to 0.09 units. Culling rates were higher, and herd-life lower for the crossbred cows. The gains obtained in secondary traits for crossbred cows did not compensate for the major reduction in production.

Keywords

dairy cattlecrossbreedingIsraeli HolsteinsNorwegian Red cattle
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 8 , August 2016 , pp. 1254 - 1262
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Buckley, F, Lopez-Villalobos, N and Heins, BJ 2014. Crossbreeding: implications for dairy cow fertility and survival. Animal 8, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dechow, CD, Rogers, GW, Cooper, JB, Phelps, MI and Mosholder, AL 2007. Milk, fat, protein, somatic cell score, and days open among Holstein, Brown Swiss, and their crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3542–3549.Google Scholar
Ezra, E, Weller, JI and Bar-Anan, R 1986. The effects of age and calving month on milk production. Heker Umas 8, 7–10. (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
Ezra, E, Weller, JI and Drori, D 1987. Estimation of environmental effects on milk protein content. Heker Umas 9, 31–35. (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
Funk, DA 2006. Major advances in globalization and consolidation of the artificial insemination industry. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1362–1368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heins, BJ and Hansen, LB 2012. Short communication: fertility, somatic cell score, and production of Normande×Holstein, Montbéliarde×Holstein, and Scandinavian Red×Holstein crossbreds versus pure Holsteins during their first 5 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 918–924.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and De Vries, A 2012. Survival, lifetime production, and profitability of Normande×Holstein, Montbeliarde×Holstein, and Scandinavian Red×Holstein crossbreds versus pure Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1011–1021.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, AJ 2006a. Fertility and survival of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4944–4951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, JA 2006b. Production of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2799–2804.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, JA 2006c. Calving difficulty and stillbirths of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2805–2810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavon, Y, Ezra, E, Leitner, G and Wolfenson, D 2011. Association of conception rate with pattern and level of somatic cell count elevation relative to time of insemination in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4538–4545.Google Scholar
Lucy, ML 2001. Reproductive loss in high-producing dairy cattle: where will it all end? Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1277–1293.Google Scholar
Malchiodi, F, Penasa, M, Tiezzi, F and Bittante, G 2011. Milk yield traits, somatic cell score, milking time and age at calving for pure Holstein versus crossbred cows. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 76, 259–261.Google Scholar
Malchiodi, F, Cecchinato, A and Bittante, G 2014. Fertility traits of purebred Holsteins and 2- and 3-breed crossbred heifers and cows obtained from Swedish Red, Montbéliarde, and Brown Swiss sires. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 7916–7926.Google Scholar
McGilliard, ML 1978. Net returns from using genetically superior sires. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 250–254.Google Scholar
Olson, KM, Cassell, BG, Hanigan, MD and Pearson, RE 2011. Short communication: interaction of energy balance, feed efficiency, early lactation health events, and fertility in first-lactation. Holstein, Jersey, and reciprocal F1 crossbred cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 507–511.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2008. SAS/STAT software. Release 9.2. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Settar, P and Weller, JI 1999. Genetic analysis of cow survival in the Israeli dairy cattle population. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2170–2177.Google Scholar
Swan, AA and Kinghorn, BP 1992. Evaluation and exploitation of crossbreeding in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 624–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, PM and Sanders, AH 2003. Economic merit of crossbred and purebred US dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1036–1044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weigel, KA and Barlass, KA 2003. Results of a producer survey regarding crossbreeding on US dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4148–4154.Google Scholar
Weller, JI 1988. Inclusion of partial lactations in the genetic analysis of yield traits by differential weighting of records. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1873–1879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, JI 1994. Economic aspects of animal breeding. Chapman & Hall, London. 244 pp.Google Scholar
Weller, JI and Ezra, E 1997. Genetic analysis of somatic cell concentration and female fertility of Israeli Holsteins by the individual animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, JI and Ezra, E 2004. Genetic analysis of the Israeli Holstein dairy cattle population for production and nonproduction traits with a multitrait animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1519–1527.Google Scholar
Weller, JI and Ezra, E 2015. Environmental and genetic factors affecting cow survival of Israeli Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 676–684.Google Scholar
Weller, JI, Ezra, E and Leitner, G 2006. Genetic analysis of persistency in the Israeli Holstein population by the multitrait animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2738–2746.Google Scholar
Weller, JI, Misztal, I and Gianola, D 1988. Genetic analysis of dystocia and calf mortality in Israeli-Holsteins by threshold and linear models. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2491–2501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, JI, Stoop, WM, Eding, H, Schrooten, C and Ezra, E 2015. Genomic evaluation of a relatively small dairy cattle population by combination with a larger population. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4945–4955.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ezra supplementary material

Tables S1-S10

Download Ezra supplementary material(File)
File 35.7 KB