Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T01:48:34.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbreeding cattle for dairy production in the tropics: effects of genetic and environmental factors on the performance of improved genotypes on the Cameroon highlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C. L. Tawah ,
D. A. Mbah ,
O. Messine ,
M. B. Enoh  and
V. N. Tanya
C. L. Tawah
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal and Veterinary Research, Wakwa, PO Box 65, Ngaoundere, Adamawa, Cameroon
O. Messine
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal and Veterinary Research, Wakwa, PO Box 65, Ngaoundere, Adamawa, Cameroon
M. B. Enoh
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal and Veterinary Research, Wakwa, PO Box 65, Ngaoundere, Adamawa, Cameroon
V. N. Tanya
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal and Veterinary Research, Wakwa, PO Box 65, Ngaoundere, Adamawa, Cameroon
Get access

Abstract

Three hundred and thirty (330) records from 363 lactations and 104 cows born between 1979 and 1991 from crossbreeding Holstein-Friesian (H) bulls with H, Ngaoundere Gudali (G) and Holstein × Gudali F1 (H1G1) cows, Montbeliard (M) bulls with G and Montbeliard × Gudali Fl (M1G1) cows and M1G1 bulls with M1G1 cows and raised in the Dairy Herd Unit of the Wakwa Animal and Veterinary Research Station in the sub-humid highlands of Cameroon were analysed to investigate the effects of genotype and environment on lactation and reproductive traits. Fixed effects of genotype season and year of calving parity and age of cow at calving were studied. Lactation milk yield (LMY), lactation length (LL), annualized milk production (AMP), calving interval (C1), dry period (DP) and age at first calving (AFC) were amongst the traits analysed. F1 crosses (H1G1, M1G1), backcrosses (¾ Holstein — ¼ Gudali; ¾ Montbeliard — ¼ Gudali) (H3G1, M3G1) and F2 crosses (MGF2) were compared. Results showed that H1G1 cows were proportionately 0·49 and 0·23 better than their corresponding backcross in LMY and AMP, respectively, while M1G1 cows were proportionately 0·12 and 0·24 inferior to M3G1 in these traits. M1G1 were proportionately superior to MGF2 in LMY (0·05), AMP (-0·04) and AFC (-0·14). M3G1 were superior (0·18 to 0·19) to MGF2 in LMY and AMP. H1G1 were consistently superior to M1G1 for most traits, suggesting that H1G1 may be better than M1G1 for dairy production.

Keywords

crossbreedingdairy cattletropical Africazebu
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , August 1999 , pp. 59 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Abassa, P. K., Mbah, D. A., Zamba, P., Tawah, C. L., Messine, O. and Oumate, H. 1993. Factors affecting Gudali and Wakwa calf weights at birth and weaning on the Adamawa plateau. Tropical Animal Health and Production 25: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agyemang, K.and Nkhonjera, L. P. 1990. Productivity of crossbred cattle on smallholder farms in southern Malawi. Tropical Animal Health and Production 22: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, G. I., Reason, G. K. and Clark, C.H. 1984. The development of the Australian Friesian Sahiwal — a tick-resistant dairy breed. World Animal Review 51: 27–34.Google Scholar
Barlow, R. 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49: 715–737.Google Scholar
Bodero, J. and Reason, G. K. 1988. The effect of temperature and humidity on daily milk production and milk composition for four breeds of dairy cattle at Darwin. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal Sciences 45: 229–237.Google Scholar
Buvanendran, V. and Mahadevan, P. 1975. Crossbreeding for milk production in Sri Lanka. World Animal Review 15: 7–13.Google Scholar
Buvanendran, V., Olayiwole, M. B., Piotrowska, K. I. and Oyejola, B. A. 1981. A comparison of milk production traits in Friesian × White Fulani crossbred cattle. Animal Production 32: 165–170.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. T., Moss, R. J. and Kerr, D. V. 1993. Northern dairy feedbase 2001. 2. Summer feeding systems. Tropical Grasslands 27: 150–161.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. and Syrstad, O. 1987. Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. FAO animal production and health paper no. 68, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Ibeawuchi, J. A. 1988. Persistency of milk production in Fj Friesian × White Fulani cattle in a tropical environment. OUA/STRC Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 36: 215–219.Google Scholar
IRZ/GTZ. 1989. Livestock farming systems in Adamawa. Research report no. 1, IRZ/GTZ.Google Scholar
Kelso, B. F. and Gagne-Gervais, . 1983. Current quantity and costs of imported dairy products. A preliminary investigation into the feasibility of developing a domestic dairy industry in Cameroon. USAID, Yaounde, Cameroon.Google Scholar
Kiwuwa, G. H., Trail, J. C. M., Kurtu, M. Y., Worku, G., Anderson, F. M. and Durkin, J. 1983. Crossbred dairy cattle productivity in Arsi Region, Ethiopia. ILCA research report no. 11. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Lasley, J. F. 1978. Genetics of livestock improvement, III edition, pp. 397–403. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.Google Scholar
Lhoste, P. and Pierson, J. 1974. Annual report 1973/74, Animal Research Centre, Wakwa, Cameroon, p. 33.Google Scholar
Lhoste, P. and Pierson, J. 1976. Annual report 1975/76, Animal Research Centre, Wakwa, Cameroon, pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, M. J., Thorpe, W. and Baker, R. L. 1996. Sources of genetic variation for milk production in a crossbred herd in the tropics. Animal Science 62: 5–16.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E., Freitas, A. F. and Martinez, M. L. 1978. Comparative evaluation of milk production in Holstein-Friesian and Holstein-Friesian × Gir cows. Proceedings of the fourth world conference on animal production, Buenos Aires, Madalena, F. E., Lemos, A. M., Teodoro, L. R., Barbosa, R. T. and Monteiro, J. B. N. 1990. Dairy production and reproduction in Holstein Friesian and Guzerat crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 1872–1886.Google Scholar
Mandakmale, S. D. and Kale, K.M. 1990. Factors affecting milk production performance of Gir halfbreds and their second generation crosses with exotic dairy breeds. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 60: 730–731.Google Scholar
Mbah, D. A. 1982a. Mortality due to rickettsia, trypanosomiasis, piroplasmosis and streptothricosis among six genetic groups of cattle at Wakwa. Science and Technology Review 2: 81–88.Google Scholar
Mbah, D. A. 1982b. Adaptation of dairy cattle to Wakwa (Adamaoua) environment. I. Resistance to cattle ticks. Science and Technology Review 2: 101–106.Google Scholar
Mbah, D. A. 1984. Adaptation of dairy cattle to Wakwa (Adamaoua) environment. II. Susceptibility to heat stress. Science and Technology Review, Agronomic and Animal Sciences Series 1: 125–131.Google Scholar
Mbah, D. A., Mbanya, J. and Messine, O. 1987. Performance of Holsteins, Jerseys and their zebu crosses in Cameroon: preliminary results. Science and Technology Review, Agronomic and Animal Sciences Series 3: 115–126.Google Scholar
McDowell, R.E. 1985. Crossbreeding in tropical areas with emphasis on milk, health and fitness. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 2418–2435.Google ScholarPubMed
Munji, M. T. 1973. Dairy production. I. Annual report 19721 73. Animal Research Centre, Bambui, Cameroon.Google Scholar
Ndikum Moffor, F. M., Yonkeu, S., Tawah, C. L., Mbah, D. A. and Pano, E. T. 1994. Mineral and crude protein content of natural pastures on Adamawa highlands, Cameroon. Discovery and Innovation 6: 184–188.Google Scholar
Pamo, E. T. and Yonkeu, S. 1986. [A study of trends in some climatic parameters of the pastoral environment in Wakwa, Adamawa, Cameroon.] Revue Science et Technique, Series Sciences Zootechniques 2: 19–34.Google Scholar
Pingpoh, D. P., Mbah, D. A. and Tawah, L. C. 1997. Profitability of agricultural research: the case of genetic improvement of cattle for milk production in a tropical environment. In Proceedings of National Research Week 97, Yaounde, Cameroon. In press.Google Scholar
Piot, J. and Rippstein, G. 1975. [Major herbaceous species of some rangelands in Adamawa, Cameroon. Ecology and dynamics of different exploitation rates.] Revue d’Élevage et de Médecine Vétérinaire des Pays tropicaux 28: 427–434.Google Scholar
Rege, J. E. O., Aboagye, G. S., Akah, S. and 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
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1991. SASI ST AT guide for personal computers. Release 6.03 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1989. Dairy cattle breeding in the tropics: performance of secondary crossbred populations. Livestock Production Science 23: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1990. Dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: the importance of genotype × environment interaction. Livestock Production Science 24: 109–118.Google Scholar