Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:44:23.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype by environment interactions for productivity and resistance to gastro-intestinal nematode parasites in Red Maasai and Dorper sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. L. Baker ,
J. M. Mugambi ,
J. O. Audho ,
A. B. Carles  and
W. Thorpe
R. L. Baker
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
J. M. Mugambi
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
J. O. Audho
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
A. B. Carles
Affiliation:
PO Box 23220, Nairobi, Kenya
W. Thorpe
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

Red Maasai and Dorper sheep were evaluated for their resistance to gastro-intestinal (GI) nematode parasites (predominantly Haemonchus contortus), productivity and productive efficiency (assessed on a metabolizable energy basis) in experiments undertaken at the Kenyan coast (sub-humid environment) and the Kenya highlands (semi-arid environment). In both ewes and lambs there were few significant genotype by environment (G X E) interactions for either resistance (assessed by faecal egg counts-FEC) or resilience (assessed by blood packed red cell volume-PCV) to GI nematodes. Red Maasai sheep were consistently more resistant (low FEC) and more resilient (high PCV) than Dorper sheep. However, there were significant G X £ interactions for ewe reproductive performance and for ewe and lamb mortality rates and live weights. These interactions were due to very poor performance of the Dorper compared to the Red Maasai in the sub-humid coastal environment and to the much improved performance of the Dorper in the semi-arid environment. When these component traits were combined into estimates of flock productivity and productive efficiency there were highly significant GXE interactions with the Red Maasai sheep being considerably more efficient than Dorper sheep in the sub-humid environment, while in the semi-arid environment there was a negligible breed difference in productive efficiency. The results are discussed in terms of breeding strategies for smallholder farmers and pastoralists managing sheep in low-input systems in sub-humid and semi-arid environments.

Keywords

genetic resistanceHaemonchus contortusproductivitysheepgenotype by environment interaction
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 343 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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., Gibson, J. P., Iraqi, F. A., Menge, D. M., Mugambi, J. M., Hanotte, O., Nagda, S., Wakelin, D. and Behnke, J. M. 2003b. Exploring the genetic control of resistance to gastrointestinal helminth infections in sheep and mice. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 15: 183–190.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Mugambi, J. M., Audho, J. O., Carles, A. B. and Thorpe, W. 2002. Comparison of Red Maasai and Dorper sheep for resistance to gastro-intestinal nematode parasites, productivity and efficiency in a humid and a semi-arid environment in Kenya. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production. Montpellier, vol. 31, pp. 639–642.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Mugambi, J. M., Okomo-Adhiambo, M. and Mackinnon, M. J. 1999a. Progress towards identifying quantitative trait loci controlling resistance to gastrointestinal nematode parasites in Red Maasai sheep. In From Jay Lush to genomics: visions for animal breeding and genetics (ed. Dekkers, J. C. M., Lamont, S. J. and Rothschild, M. F.), p. 159, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Mwamachi, D. M., Audho, J. O., Aduda, E. O. and Thorpe, W. 1999b. Genetic resistance to gastro-intestinal nematode parasites in Red Maasai, Dorper and Red Maasai X Dorper ewes in the sub-humid tropics. Animal Science 69: 335–344.Google Scholar
Baker, R. L., Nagada, S., Rodriguez-Zas, S. L., Southey, B. R., Audho, J. O., Aduda, E. O. and Thorpe, W. 2003a. Resistance and resilience to gastro-intestinal nematode parasites and relationships with productivity of Red Maasai, Dorper and Red Maasai X Dorper crossbred lambs in the sub-humid tropics. Animal Science 76: 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. L. and Rege, J. E. O. 1994. Genetic resistance to diseases and other stresses in improvement of ruminant livestock in the tropics. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 20, pp. 405–412.Google Scholar
Bishop, S. C. and Stear, M. J. 2003. Modeling of host genetics and resistance to infectious diseases: understanding and controlling nematode infections. Veterinary Parasitology 115: 147–166.Google Scholar
Cloete, S. W. P., Snyman, M. A. and Herselman, M. J. 2000. Productive performance of Dorper sheep. Small Ruminant Research 36: 119–135.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Coop, R. L. and Holmes, P. H. 1996. Nutrition and parasite interaction. International journal for Parasitology 26: 951–962.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1990. Selection in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetical Research 56: 57–70.Google Scholar
Jaeztold, R. and Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya, vol. II. Natural conditions and farm management information. Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya, in cooperation with the German Agricultural Team (GAT) of the German Agency For Technical Cooperation (GTZ).Google Scholar
James, A. D. and Carles, A. B. 1996. Measuring the productivity of grazing and foraging livestock. Agricultural Systems 52: 271–291.Google Scholar
Jong, G. de and Bijma, P. 2002. Selection and phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary biology and animal breeding. Livestock Production Science 78: 195–214.Google Scholar
Kolmodin, R., Strandberg, E., Jorjani, H. and Danell, B. 2003. Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction: response in environmental sensitivity. Animal Science 76: 375–385.Google Scholar
Kosgey, I. S., Rowlands, G. J., Arendonk, J. A. M. van and Baker, R. L. 2004. Small ruminant production in the tropics: a study of smallholder and pastoral/extensive farming systems in Kenya. Small Ruminant Research In press.Google Scholar
Milne, C. 2000. The history of the Dorper sheep. Small Ruminant Research 36: 99–102.Google Scholar
Mugambi, J. M., Audho, J. O. and Baker, R. L. 2004a. Evaluation of the phenotypic performance of a Red Maasai and Dorper double backcross resource population: natural pasture challenge with gastro-intestinal nematode parasites. Small Ruminant Research In press.Google Scholar
Mugambi, J. M., Audho, J. O., Njomo, S. and Baker, R. L. 2004b. Evaluation of the phenotypic performance of a Red Maasai and Dorper double backcross resource population: indoor trickle challenge with Haemonchus contortus. Veterinary Parasitology In press.Google Scholar
Mugambi, J. M., Bain, R. K., Wanyangu, S. W., Ihiga, M. A., Duncan, J. L., Murray, M. and Stear, M. J. 1997. Resistance of four sheep breeds to natural and subsequent artificial Haemonchus contortus infection. Veterinary Parasitology 69: 265–273.Google Scholar
Mugambi, J. M., Wanyangu, S. W., Bain, R. K., Owango, M. O., Duncan, J. L. and Stear, M. J. 1996. Response of Dorper and Red Maasai lambs to trickle Haemonchus contortus infections. Research in Veterinary Science 61: 218–221.Google Scholar
Nguti, R., Janssen, P., Rowlands, G. J., Audho, J. O. and Baker, R. L. 2003. Survival of Red Maasai, Dorper and crossbred lambs in the sub-humid tropics. Animal Science 76: 3–17.Google Scholar
Preston, J. M. and Allonby, E. W. 1978. The influence of breed on the susceptibility of sheep and goats to a single experimental infection with Haemonchus contortus. Veterinary Record 103: 509–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, J. M. and Allonby, E. W. 1979. The influence of breed on the susceptibility of sheep to Haemonchus contortus infection in Kenya. Research in Veterinary Science 26: 134–139.Google Scholar
Schoeman, S. J. 2000. A comparative assessment of Dorper sheep in different production environments and systems. Small Ruminant Research 36: 137–146.Google Scholar
Silva, A. M. A., da Silva Sobrinho, A. G., Trindale, I. A. C. M., Resende, K. T. and Bakke, O. A. 2003. Net requirements of protein and energy for maintenance of wool and hair lambs in a tropical region. Small Ruminant Research 49: 165–171.Google Scholar
Snowder, G. D. and Duckett, S. K. 2003. Evaluation of the South African Dorper as a terminal sire breed for growth, carcass and palatability characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 81: 368–375.Google Scholar
Sölkner, J., Nakimbugwe, H. and Valle Zarate, A. 1998. Analysis of determinants for success and failure of village breeding programmes. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 25, pp. 273–280.Google Scholar
Wanyangu, S. W., Mugambi, J. M., Bain, R. K., Duncan, J. L., Murray, M. and Stear, M. J. 1997. Response to artificial and subsequent natural infection with Haemonchus contortus in Red Maasai and Dorper ewes. Veterinary Parasitology 69: 275–282.Google Scholar