Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T02:12:22.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

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 (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Jimma University College of Agriculture, PO Box 307, Jimma, Ethiopia
B. K. Joshi
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India
W. Ayalew
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. Tegegne
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. Singh
Affiliation:
National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India
*
E-mail: a.haile@cgiar.org
Get access

Abstract

Breed additive and non-additive effects, and genetic parameters of lactation milk yield (LYD), 305-day milk yield (305YD), lactation length (LL), milk yield per day of lactation (DM) and lifetime milk yield (LTYD) were estimated in Ethiopian Boran cattle and their crosses with Holstein in central Ethiopia. The data analyzed included 2360 lactation records spread over 15 years. Ethiopian Boran cattle were consistently inferior (P < 0.01) to the Ethiopian Boran–Holstein crosses for the dairy traits studied. When the crosses were compared, LYD, 305YD and DM were higher (P < 0.01) for 75% and 87.5% crosses compared to 50% and 62.5% ones. However, the 50% crosses had higher (P < 0.01) LTYD than the other genetic groups. The individual additive genetic breed differences for milk production traits were all significant (P < 0.01). The estimates, in favor of Holstein, were 2055 ± 192 kg for LYD, 1776 ± 142 kg for 305YD, 108 ± 24 days for LL, 5.9 ± 0.5 kg for DM and 3353 ± 1294 kg for LTYD. Crossbreeding of the Holstein with the Ethiopian Boran resulted in desirable and significant (P < 0.01) individual heterosis for all milk production traits. The heterosis estimates were, 529 ± 98, 427 ± 72 kg, 44 ± 12 days 1.47 ± 0.23 kg and 3337 ± 681 kg, for LYD, 305YD, LL, DM and LTYD, respectively. The maternal heterotic effects were non-significant (P > 0.05) for all traits. Heritabilities of LYD, 305YD, LL, DM and LTYD for Ethiopian Boran were 0.20 ± 0.03, 0.18 ± 0.03, 0.26 ± 0.03, 0.13 ± 0.03 and 0.02 ± 0.04, respectively. The corresponding estimates for crosses were 0.10 ± 0.002, 0.11 ± 0.003, 0.63 ± 0.02, 0.45 ± 1.05 and 0.24 ± 0.11, respectively. Selection within each of the genetic groups and crossbreeding should substantially improve the milk production potential of the Ethiopian Boran breed under such production system.

Keywords

Ethiopian Borangenetic evaluationgenetic parameterHolstein

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , April 2009 , pp. 486 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cunningham, EP, Syrstad, O 1987. Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for Milk Production in the Tropics. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Animal Production and Health. Paper no. 68, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Demeke, S, Neser, FWC, Schoeman, SJ 2004. 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
EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization) 1999. Livestock Research Strategy: Executive Summary. EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.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 and Production 25, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirooka, H, Bhuttyan, AKFH 1995. Additive and heterosis effect on milk yield and birth weight from crossbreeding experiments between Holstein–Friesian and the local breed. American Journal of Animal Sciences 8, 295–301.Google Scholar
IAR (Institute of Agricultural Research) 1982. Progress report. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Jadhav, KL, Tripathi, VN, Taneja, VK, Kale, MM 1991. Performance of various Holstein × Sahiwal grades for first lactation reproduction and production traits. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 44, 209–215.Google Scholar
Kahi, AK, Mackinnon, MJ, Thorpe, W, Baker, RL, 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
Kiwuwa, GH, Trail, JCM, Kurtu, MY, Getachew, W, Anderson, MFDurkin, J 1983. Crossbred dairy cattle productivity in Arsi region, Ethiopia. ILCA Research Report no. 11, ILCA, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Lobo, RNB, Madalena, FE, Vieira, AR 2000. Average estimates of genetic parameters for beef and dairy cattle in tropical regions. Animal Breeding Abstract 68, 433–462.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, MJ, Thorpe, W, Baker, RL 1996. Source of genetic variation for milk production in a crossbred herd in the tropics. Animal Science 62, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madalena, FE 1981. Crossbreeding strategies for dairy cattle in Brazil. World Animal Review 38, 23–30.Google Scholar
Madalena, FE 1988. A note on the effect of variation of lactation length on the efficiency of tropical cattle selection for milk yield. Theriogenology and Applied Genetics 76, 830–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K 1998. DFREML (Derivative Free Restricted Maximum Likelihood) programme. Version 3.0β. User Notes. University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.Google Scholar
Million, T, Tadelle, D 2003. Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15, 31–40.Google Scholar
Million, T, Tadelle, D 2004. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters for milk production traits of crosses between Holstein Friesian and local Arsi breed in the highlands of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 3, 25–35.Google Scholar
Mohamed, AMA, Simeon, EYemesrach, A 2004. Dairy development in Ethiopia. Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD) discussion paper no. 123. International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, S 2005. Genetic evaluation of Frieswal cattle. PhD, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India.Google Scholar
Negussie, E, Brannang, E, Banjaw, K, Rottmann, OJ 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, OJ 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
Philipsson, J, Rege, JEO, Okeyo, AM 2006. Sustainable breeding programmes for tropical farming systems. In Animal genetics training resource, version 2 (ed. JM Ojango, B Malmfors and AM Okeyo). International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Raheja, KL 1994. Genetic parameters for first lactation and lifetime production traits in Friesian–Hariana and Friesian–Sahiwal halfbreds estimated by multiple trait maximum likelihood procedures. The Indian Journal of Animal Science 64, 616–621.Google Scholar
Rege, JEO 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, JEO 1998. Utilization of exotic germplasm for milk production in the tropics. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics of Applied Livestock Production, Armidale, Australia, vol. 25, pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
Rege, JEO, Aboagye, GS, Akah, S, Ahunu, BK 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
Sahota, RS, Gill, GS 1991. Relative performance of lifetime milk production and reproduction efficiency traits in different grades of crossbreds. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 43, 171–173.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. Statistical analysis systems for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sharma, BS, Pirchner, F 1991. Heterosis in Friesian × Sahiwal crosses. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W, Kangethe, P, Rege, JEO, Mosi, RO, Mwandotto, BAJ, Njuguna, P 1993. Crossbreeding Ayrshire, Friesian, and Sahiwal cattle for milk yield and preweaning traits of progeny in the semi-arid tropics of Kenya. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2001–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trail, JCM, Gregory, KE 1982. Production characters of the Sahiwal and Ayrshire breeds and their crosses in Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 14, 45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udo, MG, Mgeni, M, Syrstad, O 1995. Performance of various crosses of Mpwapwa cattle. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 43, 209–213.Google Scholar
Vaccaro, LPDe 1990. Survival of European dairy breeds and their crosses with Zebu in the tropics. Animal Breeding Abstract 58, 476–494.Google Scholar