Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:25:29.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding: implications for dairy cow fertility and survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2014

F. Buckley ,
N. Lopez-Villalobos  and
B. J. Heins
F. Buckley*
Affiliation:
Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co., Cork, Ireland
N. Lopez-Villalobos
Affiliation:
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
B. J. Heins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In pasture-based seasonal calving systems, failure to become pregnant during the breeding season results in important economic losses as maximum profit is attained by minimising costs and increasing the proportion of grass in the diet of the lactating dairy cow. In the United States, dairy producers primarily strive to maximise production potential but are becoming increasingly aware of the economic consequences of sub-optimal cow fertility and survival. For this reason, interest in crossbreeding is emerging. The objective of this paper is to review the fertility and survival outcomes reported from recent research studies and data analyses in Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. Research conducted in Ireland during the early 2000s concluded that of three ‘alternative’ dairy breeds the Norwegian Red was most suited to seasonal grass-based production. A key finding was favourable fertility and survival. A follow-up study confirmed a fertility advantage with Norwegian Red×Holstein-Friesian compared with Holstein-Friesian: proportion pregnant to first service; +0.08 and in-calf after 6 weeks breeding; +0.11. Another study found higher fertility with Jersey crossbreds: pregnant to first service; +0.21, and in-calf after 6 weeks breeding; +0.19. Studies conducted in Northern Ireland also found superior fertility performance with Jersey crossbred cows offered low and moderate concentrate diets. In New Zealand, crossbred dairy cattle (primarily Jersey×Friesian) are achieving similar rates of genetic gain for farm profit as the purebred populations, but creating additional gain derived from economic heterosis. In the United States, analysis of commercial data from California showed higher first-service conception rates for Scandinavian Red×Holstein (+6 percentage units) and Montbeliarde×Holstein (+10 percentage units) compared with Holstein (23%). They also exhibited fewer days open and greater survival. At Penn State University, Brown Swiss×Holstein cows had 17 fewer days open than Holstein cows during first lactation, and numerically fewer in second (12 days) and third lactation (6 days). At the University of Minnesota, crossbred cows had 21 percentage units higher first-service conception rates, 41 fewer days open and 12 percentage units higher in-calf rates compared with pure Holstein cows. They also had greater survival to second (+13 percentage units), third (+24 percentage units), fourth (+25 percentage units) and fifth (+17 percentage units) lactation. The literature clearly illustrates favourable animal performance benefits from crossbreeding, using a range of modern breeds, and within the context of both grass-based and high-input confinement production environments. Economic analyses generally indicate profitable performance owing to lower replacement cost and higher herd productivity.

Keywords

crossbreedingdairyfertilitysurvivalprofit
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: New Science ‐ New Practices International Cow Fertility Conference 18‐21 May 2014, Westport, Ireland , May 2014 , pp. 122 - 133
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory 2012. Averages of DHI cow herds by breed and test-plan category. Retrieved 25 February 2013, from http://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/current/hax.html Google Scholar
Auldist, MJ, Pyman, MFS, Grainger, C and MacMillan, KL 2007. Comparative reproductive performance and early lactation productivity of Jersey×Holstein cows in predominantly Holstein herds in a pasture based dairy system. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4856–4862.Google Scholar
Begley, N, Pierce, K and Buckley, F 2009. Milk production, udder health, body condition score and fertility performance of Holstein-Friesian, Norwegian Red and Norwegian Red×Holstein-Friesian cows on Irish dairy farms. In Breeding for robustness in cattle. EAAP Scientific Series 126, 659–667. ISSN 0071-2477.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD, Rath, M and Veerkamp, RF 2003. Genetic relationships among body condition score, body weight, milk yield and fertility in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2193–2204.Google Scholar
Buckley, F and Shalloo, L 2009. Crossbreeding – Is it more profitable? Proceedings of the Teagasc National Dairy Conference, 18 November, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath, pp. 93–104.Google Scholar
Buckley, F, Holmes, C and Keane, G 2005. Genetic characteristics required in dairy and beef cattle for temperate grazing systems. XX International Grassland Congress, Cork Satellite Meeting, 3–5 July, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Buckley, F, Begley, N, Pabiou, T, Pierce, KM and Evans, RD 2014. Breed and heterosis effects for a range of traits reflecting productivity, reproductive efficiency and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science (submitted).Google Scholar
Coffey, EL, Horan, B, Evan, RD, Pierce, KM and Berry, DP 2014. Production performance of Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Holstein-Friesian×Jersey cows in the Irish dairy herd. In proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, Tullamore Court Hotel, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, 10 and 11 March 2014, ISBN 978-1-84170-605-4, 63pp.Google Scholar
Croquet, C, Mayeres, P, Gillon, A, Vanderick, S and Gengler, N 2006. Inbreeding depression for global and partial economic indexes, production, type and functional traits. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 465–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosse, S, O’Farrell, K and Dillon, P 1994. Why calving date and compact calving are so important to profitable dairying. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 28, 3–8.Google Scholar
Cunningham, EP and Syrstad, O 1987. Crossbreeding bos indicus and bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. FAO animal production and health paper 68. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Dechow, CD, Rogers, GW, Cooper, JB, Phelps, MI and Mosholder, AL 2007. Milk, fat, protein, and somatic cell score and days open among Holstein, Brown Swiss and their crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3542–3549.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine 2012. Online AIM bovine statistics report 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2013, from http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/animalhealthwelfare/animalidentificationmovement/cattle/ Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Buckley, F, O’Connor, P, Hegarty, D and Rath, M 2003a. A comparison of different dairy cow breeds on a seasonal grass-based system of milk production. 1. Milk production, live weight, body condition score and DM intake. Livestock Production Science 83, 21–33.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Snijders, S, Buckley, F, Harris, B, O’Connor, P and Mee, JF 2003b. A comparison of different dairy cow breeds on a seasonal grass-based system of milk production. 2. Reproduction and survival. Livestock Production Science 83, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esslemont, RJ and Peeler, EJ 1993. The scope for raising margins in dairy herds by improving fertility and health. British Veterinary Journal 149, 537–547.Google Scholar
Ettema, JF and Santos, JEP 2004. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproductive, health, and income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2730–2742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, RD, Dillon, P, Buckley, F, Berry, DP, Wallace, M, Ducrocq, V and Garrick, DJ 2006. Trends in milk production, calving rate and survival of cows in 14 Irish dairy herds as a result of the introgression of Holstein-Friesian genes. Animal Science 82, 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longman, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Patterson, DC and McKeague, JA 2004. A comparison of the first lactation performance of Holstein-Friesian and Norwegian dairy cows on Northern Ireland dairy farms. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Winter Meeting, York, 47pp.Google Scholar
Fohrman, MH 1946. A crossbreeding experiment with dairy cattle. BDIM-INF-30. USDA, Bureau of Dairy Industry, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Freyer, G, Konig, S, Fischer, B, Bergfeld, U and Cassell, BG 2008. Crossbreeding in dairy cattle from a German perspective of the past and today. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3725–3743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, DA 2006. Major advances in globalization and consolidation of the artificial insemination industry. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1362–1368.Google Scholar
Gowen, JW 1920. Inheritance of crosses of dairy and beef breeds of cattle. II. On the transmission of milk yield to the first generation. Journal of Heredity 11, 300–316.Google Scholar
Grainger, C and Goddard, ME 2004. A review of the effects of dairy breed on feed conversion efficiency – An opportunity lost? ‘Animal Production in Australia’. Proceedings of the 25th Biennial Conference of the Australian Society of Animal Production, University of Melbourne, Victoria, CSIRO, Victoria, Australia, pp. 77–80.Google Scholar
Hansen, LB 2000. Consequences of selection for milk yield from a geneticist’s viewpoint. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harbers, AGF 1997. The usuage of heterosis correction in a multiple breed genetic evaluation. Interbull Bulletin 16, 89–93.Google Scholar
Hare, E, Norman, HD and Wright, JR 2006. Survival rates and productive herd life of dairy cattle in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3713–3720.Google Scholar
Harris, BL 1994. Animal model for New Zealand dairy cattle evaluation. Interbull Bulletin 10, 15.Google Scholar
Harris, BL 2005. Breeding dairy cows for the future in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 53, 384–389.Google Scholar
Harris, BL and Kolver, ES 2001. Review of Holsteinization on intensive pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 84, E56–E61.Google Scholar
Harris, BL, Holmes, CW, Winkelman, AM and Xu, ZZ 2001. Comparisons between fertility and survival of strains of Holstein-Friesian cows, Jersey cows and their crosses in New Zealand. In Fertility in the high producing dairy cow (ed. Diskin MG). Occasional publication no. 26, British Society of Animal Science,pp. 491–493.Google Scholar
Hazel, AR, Heins, BJ, Seykora, AJ and Hansen, LB 2014. Production, fertility, survival, and body measurements of Montbéliarde-sired crossbreds compared with pure Holsteins during their first 5 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2512–2525.Google Scholar
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 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.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, AJ 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, AJ 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.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and De Vries, A 2012a. Survival, lifetime production, and profitability of crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbéliarde, and Scandinavian Red compared to pure Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1011–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB, Hazel, AR, Seykora, AJ, Johnson, DG and Linn, JG 2012b. Short communication: Jersey×Holstein crossbreds compared with pure Holsteins for body weight, body condition score, fertility, and survival during the first three lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4130–4135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB, Seykora, AJ, Hazel, AR, Johnson, DG and Linn, JG 2011. Short communication: Jersey×Holstein crossbreds compared with pure Holsteins for production, mastitis, and body measurements during the first 3 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 501–506.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB, Seykora, AJ, Johnson, DG, Linn, JG, Romano, JE and Hazel, AR 2008. Crossbreds of Jersey×Holstein compared to pure Holsteins for production, fertility, and body and udder measurements during first lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1270–1278.Google Scholar
Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G and Ruane, J 2000. Selection for mastitis resistance: a review with focus on the situation in the Nordic countries. Livestock Production Science 64, 95–106.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J, van der Lugt, AW, van der Werf, JHJ and Ouweltjes, W 1994. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for milk production and fertility traits in upgraded dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 40, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, CW, Brookes, IM, Garrick, DJ, Mackenzie, DDS, Parkinson, TJ and Wilson, GF 2007. Milk production from pasture. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF) 2014. Dairy calving Statistics. Retrieved 24 March 2014, from http://www.icbf.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dairy-Calving-Stats.pdf Google Scholar
Kargo, M, Madsen, P and Norberg, E 2012. Short communication: Is crossbreeding only beneficial in herds with low management level? Journal of Dairy Science 95, 925–928.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, BP 1982. Genetic effects in crossbreeding I. Models of merit. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 99, 59–68.Google Scholar
Kuhn, MT, Hutchison, JL and Wiggans, GR 2006. Characterization of Holstein heifer fertility in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4907–4920.Google Scholar
Laben, RC, Cupps, PT, Meade, SW and Regan, WM 1955. Some effects of inbreeding and evidence of heterosis through outcrossing in a Holstein-Friesian herd. Journal of Dairy Science 38, 525–535.Google Scholar
Lindhe, B and Philpsson, J 2001. The Scandinavian experience of including reproductive traits in breeding programmes. In Fertility in the high producing dairy cow (ed. MG Diskin), Occasional publication no. 26, British Society of Animal Science, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar
Livestock Improvement Corporation and Dairy NZ (LIC and DairyNZ) 2013. New Zealand dairy statistics 2012–2013. Livestock Improvement Corporation and DairyNZ, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Lopez-Villalobos, N and Garrick, DJ 2006. Crossbreeding systems for dairy production in New Zealand. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, Communication No. 32-07.Google Scholar
Lopez-Villalobos, N, Harris, BL and Pryce, JE 2004. Mate selection to control inbreeding and maximise farm profit of commercial dairy cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64, 122–126.Google Scholar
Lopez-Villalobos, N, Garrick, DJ, Blair, HT and Holmes, CW 2000. Possible effects of 25 years of selection and crossbreeding on the genetic merit and productivity of New Zealand dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 154–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucy, MC 2001. Reproductive loss in high-producing dairy cattle: where will it end? Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1277–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAllister, AJ, Lee, AJ, Batra, TR, Lin, CY, Roy, GL, Vesely, JA, Wauthy, JM and Winter, KA 1994. The influence of additive and non-additive gene action on lifetime yields and profitability of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 2400–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, AJ 2002. Is crossbreeding the answer to questions of dairy breed utilization? Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2352–2357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McParland, S, Kearney, JF, Rath, M and Berry, DP 2007a. Inbreeding trends and pedigree analysis of Irish dairy and beef cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 322–331.Google Scholar
McParland, S, Kearney, JF, Rath, M and Berry, DP 2007b. Inbreeding effects on milk production, fertility, and conformation in Irish Holstein-Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4411–4419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL and Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, RH, Kuhn, MT, Norman, HD and Wright, JR 2008. Death losses for lactation cows in herds enrolled in Dairy Herd Improvement test plans. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3710–3715.Google Scholar
New Zealand Animal Evaluation Limited (NZAEL) 2014. All about BW. Retrieved 23 March 2014, from http://www.nzael.co.nz/ all-about-bw Google Scholar
Norman, HD, Wright, JR, Hubbard, SM, Miller, RH and Hutchison, JL 2009. Reproductive status of Holstein and Jersey cows in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3517–3528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olori, VE, Meuwissen, THE and Veerkamp, RF 2002. Calving interval and survival breeding values as measure cow fertility in a pasture-based production system with seasonal calving. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 689–696.Google Scholar
Penasa, M, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Evans, RD, Cromie, AR, Dal Zotto, R and Cassandro, M 2010. Crossbreeding effects on milk yield traits and calving interval in spring-calving dairy cows. Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 300–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penno, JW 1998. Principles of profitable dairying. Proceedings of the Ruakura Farmers Conference, Brebner Print Ltd., Hawkes Bay, New Zealand, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Powell, RL, Norman, HD and Hutchison, JL 2008. Breed composition of the United States dairy cattle herd. Journal of Dairy Science 91 (suppl. 1), 7. (abstract T17).Google Scholar
Prendiville, R, Pierce, KM and Buckley, F 2009. An evaluation of production efficiencies among lactating Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian cows at pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6176–6185.Google Scholar
Prendiville, R, Lewis, E, Pierce, KM and Buckley, F 2010a. Comparative grazing behaviour of lactating Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian cows and it association with intake capacity and production efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 764–774.Google Scholar
Prendiville, R, Pierce, KM and Buckley, F 2010b. A comparison between Holstein-Friesian and Jersey dairy cows and their F1 cross with regard to milk yield, somatic cell score, mastitis and milking characteristics under grazing conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2741–2750.Google Scholar
Prendiville, R, Pierce, KM, Delaby, L and Buckley, F 2011a. Animal performance and production efficiencies of Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian cows throughout lactation. Livestock Science 138, 25–33.Google Scholar
Prendiville, R, Shalloo, L, Pierce, KM and Buckley, F 2011b. Comparative performance of Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian cows under seasonal pasture-based management. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 50, 123–140.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE and Veerkamp, RF 2001. The incorporation of fertility indices in genetic improvement programmes. In Fertility in the high producing dairy cow (ed. MG Diskin), Occasional publication no. 26, British Society of Animal Science, pp. 237–249.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, McNaughton, LR and Burke, CR 2007. Fact and fiction of Kiwi cow fertility: the New Zealand approach to breeding more fertile cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science Conference: fertility in dairy cows − bridging the gaps, 30−31 August, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, Rath, M and Wallace, M 2004. Description and validation of the Moorepark dairy system model. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1945–1959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J and Christensen, LG 2008. Crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a Danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.Google Scholar
Smith, LA, Cassell, BG and Pearson, RE 1998. The effects of inbreeding on the lifetime performance of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2729–2737.Google Scholar
Swan, AA and Kinghorn, BP 1992. Evaluation and exploitation of crossbreeding in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 624–639.Google Scholar
Touchberry, RW 1992. Crossbreeding effects in dairy cattle: the Illinois experiment, 1949 to 1969. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 640–667.Google Scholar
Vance, ER, Ferris, CP, Elliott, CT, Hartley, HM and Kirkpatrick, DJ 2013. Comparison of the performance of Holstein-Friesian and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows within three contrasting grassland-based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 151, 66–79.Google Scholar
VanRaden, PM, Tooker, ME, Cole, JB, Wiggans, GR and Megonigal, JH Jr 2007. Genetic evaluations for mixed-breed populations. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2434–2441.Google Scholar
VanRaden, PM, Sanders, AH, Tooker, ME, Miller, RH, Norman, HD, Kuhn, MT and Wiggans, GR 2004. Development of a national genetic evaluation for cow fertility. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2285–2292.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Dillon, P, Kelly, E, Cromie, AR and Groen, AF 2002. Dairy cattle breeding objectives combining yield, survival and calving interval for pasture-based systems in Ireland under different milk quota scenarios. Livestock Science 76, 137–151.Google Scholar
Wall, E, Brotherstone, S, Kearney, JF, Woolliams, JA and Coffey, MP 2005. Impact of nonadditive genetic effects in the estimation of breeding values for fertility and correlated traits. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 376–385.Google Scholar
Walsh, S, Buckley, F, Pierce, K, Byrne, N, Patton, J and Dillon, P 2008. Effects of breed and feeding system on milk production, body weight, body condition score, reproductive performance, and post-partum ovarian function. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4401–4413.Google Scholar
Walsh, S, Buckley, F, Berry, DP, Rath, M, Pierce, KM, Byrne, N and Dillon, P 2007. Effects of breed, feeding system, and parity on udder health and milking characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5767–5779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, SP, Silvia, WJ, Brown, CH, McDaniel, BT and McAllister, AJ 2002. Trends in reproductive performance in southeastern Holstein and Jersey DHI herds. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 244–251.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA 2001. Controlling inbreeding in modern breeding programs. Journal of Dairy Science 84 (suppl.), E177–E184.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA, Palmer, RW and Caraviello, DZ 2003. Investigation of factors affecting voluntary and involuntary culling in expanding dairy herds in Wisconsin using survival analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1482–1486.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA 2006. Prospects for improving reproductive performance through genetic selection. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 323–330.Google Scholar
Wickham, BW, Amer, PR, Berry, DP, Burke, M, Coughlan, S, Cromie, A, Kearney, JF, McHugh, N, McParland, S and O’Connell, K 2012. Industrial perspective: capturing the benefits of genomics to Irish cattle breeding. Animal Production Science 52, 172–179.Google Scholar
Willham, RL and Pollak, E 1985. Theory of heterosis. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 2411–2417.Google Scholar