Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:23:50.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic evaluation of Ethiopian Boran cattle and their crosses with Holstein Friesian in central Ethiopia: reproductive traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

A. HAILE ,
B. K. JOSHI ,
W. AYALEW ,
A. TEGEGNE  and
A. SINGH
A. HAILE*
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Jimma University College of Agriculture, P.O. Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia
B. K. JOSHI
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India
W. AYALEW
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. TEGEGNE
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. SINGH
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Breed additive and non-additive effects as well as genetic parameters for calving interval (CI), days open (DO), age at first service (AFS), age at first calving (AFC), number of services per first conception (NSC) and breeding efficiency (BE) were estimated in Ethiopian Boran cattle and their crosses with Holstein Friesian in central Ethiopia. The data analysed were spread over 15 years (1990–2004). The Ethiopian Boran cattle had longer CI and DO, lower BE and delayed AFS and AFC compared with all the crosses. However, there was no significant difference in NSC between the genetic groups. Comparison between the crosses revealed no clear cut superiority of any of the genetic groups except for CI and DO which were shorter for 0·50 and 0·875 crosses compared with the 0·75 crosses. The additive breed differences between Ethiopian Boran and Holstein Friesian for CI, DO, NSC and BE were not significant (P>0·05). These estimates are also associated with large standard errors. The non-significance of the otherwise large difference (40 days for CI for instance) between the two breeds could be a result of a large variation (and hence standard errors) associated with the traits. On the other hand, the estimates for additive direct effects for AFS and AFC were negative and significant (P<0·01). The estimates were −7±2·1 and −7±2·8 months, respectively. The individual heterosis values were not significant (P>0·05) for CI, DO, NSC and BE. However, significant (P<0·01) estimates for AFS and AFC (P<0·05) were recorded. None of the maternal heterotic effects for reproduction traits were significant (P>0·05) except for AFC, for which positive (2·9 months) and significant (P<0·05) estimates were obtained. Heritabilities of CI, DO, AFS, AFC, NSC and BE for crosses were 0·1±0·046, 0·1±0·047, 0·6±0·145, 0·7±0·159, 0·1±0·071 and 0·6±0·156, respectively. Selection coupled with improved herd reproductive management should substantially improve the reproductive performance of the indigenous Ethiopian Boran breed under such production system.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 81 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Albero, M. (1983). Comparative performance of F1 Friesian×Zebu heifers in Ethiopia. Animal Production 37, 247–252.Google Scholar
Ballewar, V. R. (2003). Genetic studies on production and reproduction traits and morphometry of Frieswal cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, India.Google Scholar
Busch, W. & Furstenberg, L. (1984). The environmental influences upon the reproductive performance in cattle'. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, paper no. 132. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. & Syrstad, O. (1987). Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for Milk Production in the Tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health. Paper No. 68. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
De Vaccaro, L. P. (1973). Some aspects of the performance of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle in the tropics. Part I: reproductive efficiency in females. Animal Breeding Abstracts 41, 571–589.Google Scholar
Demeke, S., Neser, F. W. C. & Schoeman, S. J. (2004 a). Estimates of genetic parameters for Boran, Friesian and crosses of Friesian and Jersey with the Boran cattle in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia: reproduction traits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 121, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeke, S., Neser, F. W. C. & Schoeman, S. J. (2004 b). Estimates of genetic parameters for Boran, Friesian, and crosses of Friesian and Jersey with the Boran cattle in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia: milk production traits and cow weight. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 121, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) (1999). Livestock Research Strategy: Executive Summary. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EARO.Google Scholar
Galina, C. S. & Arthur, G. H. (1989). Review of cattle reproduction in the tropics. Part 3. Puerperium. Animal Breeding Abstracts 57, 899–909.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M. & Goshu, M. (1987). Reproductive performance of Fogera cattle and their Friesian crosses. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science 9, 95–114.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M., Banjaw, K., Gebre-Meskel, T. & Ketema, H. (1993). Productivity of Boran cattle and their Friesian crosses at Abernossa Ranch, Rift Valley of Ethiopia. I. Reproductive performance and preweaning mortality. Tropical Animal Health Production 25, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirooka, H. & Bhuiyan, A. K. F. H. (1995). Additive and heterosis effects on milk yield and birth weight from crossbreeding experiments between Holstein and the local breed in Bangladesh. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences 8, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) (1982). Progress Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: IAR.Google Scholar
Jadhav, K. L. (1990). Evaluation of various Holstein grades for economic efficiency and health costs. Ph.D. Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University), Karnal, India.Google Scholar
Kahi, A. K., Mackinnon, M. J., Thorpe, W., Baker, R. L. & Njubi, D. (1995). Estimation of individual and maternal additive genetic and heterotic effects for preweaning traits of crosses of Ayrshire, Brown Swiss and Sahiwal cattle in the lowland tropics of Kenya. Livestock Production Science 44, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahi, A. K., Thorpe, W., Nitter, G. & Baker, R. L. (2000). Crossbreeding for dairy production in the lowland tropics of Kenya: I. Estimation of individual crossbreeding effects on milk production and reproductive traits and on cow live weight. Livestock Production Science 63, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiwuwa, G. H., Trail, J. C. M., Kurtu, M. Y., Getachew, W., Anderson, M. F. & Durkin, J. (1983). Crossbred Dairy Cattle Productivity in Arsi Region, Ethiopia. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) Research Report No. 11. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA.Google Scholar
Lobo, R. N. B., Madalena, F. E. & Vieira, A. R. (2000). Average estimates of genetic parameters for beef and dairy cattle in tropical regions. Animal Breeding Abstracts 68, 433–462.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, M. J., Thorpe, W. & Baker, R. L. (1996). Source of genetic variation for milk production in a crossbred herd in the tropics. Animal Science 62, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Teodoro, R. L., Lemos, A. M., Monteiro, J. B. N. & Barbosa, R. T. (1990). Evaluation of strategies for crossbreeding dairy cattle in Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 1887–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Velasco, J. A., Van Vleck, L. D., Johnson, J. C., Brandt, G. W., Hollon, B. F. & McDaniel, B. T. (1974). Reproductive efficiency of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. (1998). DFREML (Derivative Free Restricted Maximum Likelihood) programme. User Notes, version 3.0β. Armidale, Australia: University of New England.Google Scholar
Mudgal, K. C., Taylor, C. M. & Singh, A. (1986). Studies on dry period and service period in crossbred cattle. Indian Veterinary Journal 63, 561–565.Google Scholar
Negussie, E., Brännäng, E., Banjaw, K. & Rottmann, O. J. (1998). Reproductive performance of dairy cattle at Asella Livestock Farm, Arsi, Ethiopia. I. Indigenous cows versus their F1 crosses. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 115, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negussie, E., Brännäng, E. & Rottmann, O. J. (1999). Reproductive performance and herd life of dairy cattle at Asella livestock farm, Arsi, Ethiopia. II: crossbreds with 50, 75 and 87·5% European inheritance. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rege, J. E. O. (1991). Genetic analysis of reproductive performance of Friesian cattle in Kenya. I. Genetic and phenotypic parameters. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108, 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rege, J. E. O., Aboagye, G. S., Akah, S. & Ahunu, B. K. (1994). Crossbreeding Jersey with Ghana Shorthorn and Sokoto Gudali cattle in a tropical environment: additive and heterotic effects for milk production, reproduction and calf growth traits. Animal Production 59, 21–29.Google Scholar
SAS (2002). Statistical Analysis Systems for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Sharma, B. S. & Pirchner, F. (1991). Heterosis in Friesian×Sahiwal crosses. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M. K. & Gurnani, M. (2004). Genetic analysis of production and reproduction traits in Karan Fries and Karan Swiss cattle. Indian Journal of Animal Science 74, 225–228.Google Scholar
Teodoro, R. L., Lemos, A. M., Barbosa, R. T. & 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
Wilcox, C. J., Pfau, K. O. & Bartlett, J. W. (1957). An investigation of the inheritance of female reproductive performance and longevity, and their inter-relationships within a Holstein Friesian herd. Journal of Dairy Science 40, 942–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar