Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:27:20.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. A. Morris ,
R. L. Baker ,
S. M. Hickey ,
D. L. Johnson ,
N. G. Cullen  and
J. A. Wilson
C. A. Morris
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
R. L. Baker
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
S. M. Hickey
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
D. L. Johnson
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
N. G. Cullen
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. A. Wilson
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

A total of 161 bulls from 11 breeds were used to generate crossbred calves from Angus cows in 1973 to 1977 at each of three diverse New Zealand locations, and from Hereford cows at one of the locations in the same years. The bulls comprised four local breeds, Angus, Friesian, Hereford, and Jersey, and seven recently imported breeds, Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolais, Chianina, Limousin, Maine Anjou, Simmental and South Devon. This paper reports the reproductive and maternal performance of the straightbred and first-cross cows over the first four calvings, with first mating as yearlings at 14 to 16 months of age. A total of 7575 mating records from 2109 cows were analysed. Location differences were greater for reproduction than for growth traits and resulted in genotype × environment interactions for some components of cow performance and particularly the composite traits, weight of calf weaned per cow joined (productivity) and cow ‘efficiency’ (the ratio of productivity to cow weight). At all locations the Friesian-cross cows weaned the greatest weight of calf per head but were matched or surpassed by the lighter Jersey crosses in terms of efficiency of calf production. Most of the European crosses performed relatively much better in the most favourable environment than in the harsh environment and this was particularly marked for the productivity of Simmental crosses. Heterosis as a proportion of the purebred mean was important for cow performance and particularly pregnancy rate (0·12), productivity (0·21) and the efficiency ratio (0·16). Heritabilities for weight and age at puberty were both 0·34 (s.e. 0·08). Repeatabilities and heritabilities for cow reproductive traits were low (0·0 to 0·10) but higher for calf weights up to weaning as a trait of the cow (0·09 to 0·38). In general, the large European breeds which excelled in growth and carcass production produced female progeny which reached puberty at greater ages, had lower reproductive performance (especially in less favourable environments) and larger mature size. Some breed utilization strategies to achieve trade-offs between these genetic antagonisms are discussed.

Keywords

beef cattlegenotype environment interactionmaternal effectsreproductive traits
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 69 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Baker, R. L. 1982. The place of crossbreeding in beef cattle improvement. Proceedings of the first world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Christchurch, New Zealand, vol. 2, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H., Morris, C. A. and Johnson, D. L. 1990. Evaluation of 11 cattle breeds for crossbred beef production: performance of progeny up to 13 months of age. Animal Production 50: 63–77.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H. and Muller, J. P. E. 1981. Performance of crossbred cows in the Ruakura beef breed evaluation trial. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41: 254–2661.Google Scholar
Barlow, R. 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 715–737.Google Scholar
Barlow, R., Ellis, K. J., Williamson, P. J., Costigan, P., Stephenson, P. D., Rose, G. and Mears, P. T. 1988. Dry-matter intake of Hereford and first-cross cows measured by controlled release of chromic oxide on three pasture systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110: 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, R. and Hearnshaw, H. 1988. Size by environment interactions on maternal traits of cattle. Proceedings of the third world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Paris, France, vol. 2, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
Cartwright, T. C. 1970. Selection criteria for beef cattle for the future, Journal of Animal Science 30: 706–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V. 1984. Output and input differences among diverse breeds of cattle. Proceedings of the second world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 576–588.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1974. Effects of heterosis on reproduction in Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38: 711–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1988. Productivity of large sized cattle breeds in beef cow herds in the temperate zones of North America. Proceedings of the third world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Paris, France, vol. 2, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M. and Dickerson, G. E. 1986. Genetic diversity among cattle breeds and its use to increase beef production efficiency in a temperate environment. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Nebraska, USA, vol. 9, pp. 271–282.Google Scholar
Dearborn, D. D., Koch, R. M., Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Dickerson, G. E. 1973. An analysis of reproductive traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 36: 1032–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1985. Cow type and the nutritional environment: nutritional aspects. Journal of Animal Science 61: 725–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fredeen, H. T., Weiss, G. M., Lawson, J. E., Newman, J. A. and Rahnefeld, G. W. 1981. Lifetime reproductive efficiency of first-cross beef cows under contrasting environments. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: £539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1984. An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E., Munro, R. K. and O'Neill, C. J. 1987. Some factors related to calf crops of Brahman, Brahman crossbred and Hereford × Shorthorn cows in a stressful tropical environment. Animal Reproduction Science 15: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianola, D. and Norton, H. W. 1981. Scaling threshold characters. Genetics, USA 99: 357–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, K. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1980. Crossbreeding in beef cattle: evaluation of systems. Journal of Animal Science 51: 1224–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1992. Breed effects and heterosis in advanced generations of composite populations for reproduction and maternal traits of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 70: 656–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearnshaw, H. and Barlow, R. 1984. Evaluation of crossbred cattle on diverse pasture systems in NSW. Proceedings of the second world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 752–756.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. W., Stephens, D. F., Whiteman, J. V. and Totusek, R. 1975. Performance of 3-year-old Hereford, Hereford × Holstein and Holstein cows on range and in drylot. Journal of Animal Science 40: 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T. G., Kaps, M., Cundiff, L. V. and Ferrell, C. L. 1991. Evaluation of between- and within-breed variation in measures of weight-age relationships. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3118–3128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, R. M., Dickerson, G. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1985. Heterosis retained in advanced generations of crosses among Angus and Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1117–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1988. Statistical package: GENSTAT 5, release 1.3. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
MacNeil, M. D., Cundiff, L. V., Dinkel, C. A. and Koch, R. M. 1984. Genetic correlations among sex-limited traits in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 58: 1171–1180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marlowe, T. J. 1984. Effect of breed composition on cow and calf performance. Proceedings of the second world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 666–670.Google Scholar
Meacham, N. S. and Notter, D. R. 1987. Heritability estimates for calving date in Simmental cattle. Journal of Animal Science 64: 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Carter, A. H. and Hickey, S. M. 1990. Evaluation of 11 cattle breeds for crossbred beef production: carcass data from males slaughtered at two ages. Animal Production 50: 79–92.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hohenboken, W. D., Johnson, D. L. and Cullen, N. G. 1986. Heterosis retention for live weight in advanced generations of a Hereford and Angus crossbreeding experiment. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Nebraska, USA, vol. 9, pp. 301–307.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Johnson, D. L., Carter, A. H. and Hunter, J. C. 1987a. Reciprocal crossbreeding of Angus and Hereford cattle. 3. Cow weight, reproduction, maternal performance, and lifetime production. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Wilson, J. A. and Jones, K. R. 1987b. Effects of 11 dam breed-types and six terminal sire breeds on beef carcass characteristics. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, M. and Lienard, G. 1988. Performance characteristics and efficiencies of various types of beef cows in French production systems. Proceedings of the third world congress on sheep and beef cattle breeding, Paris, France, vol. 2, pp. 25–51.Google Scholar
Sacco, R. E., Baker, J. F., Cartwright, T. C., Long, C. R. and Sanders, J. O. 1989. Lifetime productivity of straightbred and F1 cows of a five-breed diallel. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1964–1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setshwaelo, L. L., Cundiff, L. V. and Dickerson, G. E. 1990. Breed effects on crossbred cow-calf performance. Journal of Animal Science 68: 1577–1587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, St C. S., Thiessen, R. B. and Murray, J. 1986. Inter-breed relationship of maintenance efficiency to milk yield in cattle. Animal Production 43: 37–61.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. E., Woods, S. G. and Meadows, S. E. 1986. Comparison of five dam breeds under two nutritional environments. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Nebraska, USA, vol. 9, pp. 331–335.Google Scholar