Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:45:38.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimations of heterosis in crossbred dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. P. Donald ,
D. Gibson  and
W. S. Russell
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
D. Gibson
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
W. S. Russell
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

In a long-term experiment, the performance of British Friesian, Ayrshire and Jersey cattle and their first and second crosses was evaluated over 526 first and 477 second lactations. Live weight at 18 mo of age and the ratios of lactation yield to live weight were examined as well as milk yield and composition of milk.

Percentage heterosis in each combination of two pure breeds was estimated. For the three first crosses combined, heterosis for 305-day milk yield averaged 6·4% in first and 3·7% in second lactations. Heterosis in live weight at 18 mo averaged 2·9%; none was found in the Ayrshire × British Friesian crosses, but the others averaged 4·7%. Second crosses overall had an average live weight near to that of first crosses, but their milk yields were lower and, in the combined lactations, approximately equalled the purebreds' total.

Components of variance due to breed and environmental factors were calculated. Breed accounted for 50% of variance in live weight at 18 mo but less than 10% of variance in milk yield.

The influence of fertility on heterosis is discussed with reference to earlier findings, and economic implications are considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , October 1977 , pp. 193 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

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

Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1974. Effects of heterosis on reproduction in Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 38: 711–727.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. G. 1961. The genetical basis of conformation in cattle as revealed by crossbreeding. Z. Tierzücht. ZüchtBiol. 75: 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1963. Perinatal deaths among calves in a crossbred dairy herd. Anim. Prod. 5: 87–95.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1968. Some aspects of fertility in purebred and cross- bred dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 10: 465–471.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Russell, W. S. and Taylor, St C. S. 1962. Birth weights of reciprocally crossbred calves. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58: 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, R. E. and McDaniel, B. T. 1968. Interbreed matings in dairy cattle. III. Economic aspects. J. Dairy Sci. 51: 1649–1658.Google Scholar
Moav, R. 1966. Specialised sire and dam lines. I. Economic evaluation of crossbreds. Anim. Prod. 8: 193–202.Google Scholar
Pearson, L. and McDowell, R. E. 1968. Crossbreeding of dairy cattle in temperate zones: a review of recent studies. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 36: 1–15.Google Scholar
Quartermain, A. R. and Carter, A. H. 1969. Weight and productivity of dairy cattle. Proc. Ruakura Fmrs' Conf. Week, 1969, pp. 165–177.Google Scholar
Rincon, E. J., McDaniel, B. T. and Robison, O. W. 1976. Additive, heterozygotic and maternal breed effects on milk yields during first lactation. Proc. 71st Annual Meeting, American Dairy Science Association, Raleigh, USA.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1971. Optimum utilisation of genetic material with special reference to crossbreeding in relation to other methods of genetic improvement. 10th int. Congr. Anim. Prod. Versailles, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. and Bereskin, B. 1966. Crossbreeding dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 49: 287–300; 647–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed