Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:42:36.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lactation performance of purebred Arsi cows and Friesian × Arsi crosses under pre-partum and post-partum supplementary feeding regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. Y. Kurtut ,
C. L. Tawah ,
J. E. O. Rege ,
Nega-Alemayehu  and
Mesfin-Shibre
M. Y. Kurtut*
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
C. L. Tawah
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
J. E. O. Rege*
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Nega-Alemayehu
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Mesfin-Shibre
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*
† Present address: Alemaya University of Agriculture, PC Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
‡ Corresponding author.
Get access

Abstract

A study was conducted at the Asella Station in the Arsi Region of Ethiopia to investigate the dairy performance of indigenous purebred Arsi and Friesian × Arsi crosses under different pre-partum and post-partum supplementary feeding regimes. A total of’343 first-lactation animals were involved in the experiment. Lactation performance was not significantly affected by pre-partum supplementation. Post-partum supplementary feeding significantly affected total lactation milk and butterfat yields of the crosses but not the purebred Arsi. Arsi crosses produced more milk (1873 (s.e. 65·1) v. 258 (s.e. 31·7) kg) and butterfat (92 (s.e. 4·0) v. 25 (s.e. 2·8) kg) than purebred Arsi. The crosses stayed in lactation longer (474 (s.e. 13·0) v. 179 (s.e. 15·4) days) than the latter. Purebred Arsi manifested much more variation in total lactation milk yield (CV: 1·27 v. 0·37), lactation length (0·91 v. 0·30) and butterfat yield (0·71 v. 0·42) than Arsi crosses. F1 crosses produced slightly more milk (+266 kg) and butterfat (+19·3 kg) but had shorter (-30 days) lactations than the backerosses.

Keywords

Arsicattlecrossbreedinglactationsupplementary feeding
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 625 - 633
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

Brannang, E., Meskel, L. B., Schaar, J. and Swensson, C. 1980. Breeding activities of the Ethio-Swedish integrated rural development project. 1. Planning and goals — the multiplier herd system. World Animal Review 36: 34–36.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
Capper, B. S., Pratchett, D., Rennie, T. W., Light, D., Rutherford, A., Miller, M., Buck, N. G. and Trail, J. C. M. 1977. Effects of rumen stimulatory licks on reproductive performance and live-weight gain of beef cattle in Botswana. Animal Production 24: 49–55.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. and Syrstad, O. 1987. Crossbreeding Bos indicus and Bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations animal production and health paper no. 68.Google Scholar
De Alba, J. and Kennedy, B. W. 1986. Milk production in the Latin American Criollo and its crosses with the Jersey. Animal Breeding Abstracts 56: 10.Google Scholar
Dhiman, T. R., Cadorniga, C. and Satter, L. D. 1993. Protein and energy supplementation of high alfalfa silage diets during early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1945–1959.Google Scholar
El-Tayeb, A. E. and Takla, A. G. 1992. Effect of addition of concentrates to Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) in the pre-calving period on performance of Holstein-Friesian heifers in Sudan. In The complementarity of feed resources for animal production in Africa (ed. Stares, J. E. S. Said, A. N. and Kategile, J. A.), proceedings of the Joint Feed Resources Networks workshop, Gaborone, Botswana, 4-8 March 1991, pp. 259–263. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. A. and Magner, T. 1988. The effect of supplements of formaldehyde-treated casein on the partitioning of nutrients between cow and calf in lactating Bos indicus × Bos taurus heifers fed a roughage diet. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 39: 1151–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Livestock Centre for Africa. 1978. Mathematical modelling of livestock production systems: application of the Texas A&M University beef cattle production model to Botswana. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Jennings, P. G. and Holmes, W. 1985. Supplementing feeding to dairy cows grazing tropical pasture: a review. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 62: 266–278.Google Scholar
Kale, M. M. and Tomer, O. S. 1991. Effect of prepartum feeding on the postpartum performance of crossbred cows. Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management 7: 1–7.Google Scholar
Kebede, B. 1992. Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic effects for growth, milk yield and reproductive traits of crossbred (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) cattle in the wet and dry environments in Ethiopia. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Google Scholar
Khalili, H., Osuji, P. O., Umunna, N. N. and Crosse, S. 1994. The effects of forage type (maize-lablab or oat-vetch) and level of supplementation (wheat-middlings) on food intake, diet apparent digestibility, purine excretion and milk production of crossbred (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) cows. Animal Production 58: 321–328.Google Scholar
Khalili, H., Varvikko, T. and Crosse, S. 1992. The effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on food intake, diet digestibility and milk production of crossbred cows (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) . Animal Production 54: 183–189.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
McAllister, A. J. 1986. The role of crossbreeding in breeding programmes for intensive milk production in temperate climates. Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. 9, pp. 47–61.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 Scholar
McGilliard, M. L. 1990. Effect of prepartum dietary energy on condition score, postpartum energy, nitrogen partitions and lactation production responses. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 3502–3511.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. 1981. Crossbreeding strategies for dairy cattle in Brazil. World Animal Review 38: 23–30.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. 1988. A note on the effect of variation of lactation length on the efficiency of tropical cattle selection for milk yield. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 76: 830.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. 1990. Crossbreeding effects in tropical dairy cattle. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. 14, pp. 310–319.Google Scholar
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 Guzera crosses. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 1872–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makombe, W. 1991. Protein and mineral supplementation in dairy cows. M.Sc. thesis, University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi.Google Scholar
Malik, N. S., Makkar, G. S., Kakkar, V. K. and Parmar, O. S. 1990. Effect of different nutrient density rations on growth, reproduction and milk production potential of crossbred cattle. Journal of Research (Punjab Agricultural University) 27: 479–484.Google Scholar
Mbah, D. A., Mbanya, J. and Messine, O. 1987. Performance of Holsteins, Jerseys and the zebu crosses in Cameroon. Preliminary results. Review of science and technology, agronomy science series, Ministry of Scientific and Technical Research, Yaounde, Cameroon, vol. 3, pp. 115–126.Google Scholar
Mrode, R. A. 1988. Lactation performance of the White Fulani cattle in southern Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 20: 149–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muinga, R. W., Thorpe, W. and Topps, J. H. 1992. Voluntary food intake, live-weight change and lactation performance of crossbred dairy cows given ad libitum Pennisetum purpureum (napier grass var. Bana) supplemented with leucaena forage in the lowland semi-humid tropics. Animal Production 55: 331–337.Google Scholar
Muinga, R. W., Thorpe, W. and Topps, J. H. 1993. Lactational performance of Jersey cows given Napier fodder (Pennisetum purpureum) with and without protein concentrates in the semi-humid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 25: 118–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 (Kenya) 6: 184–188.Google Scholar
Negussie, E. 1991. Reproductive performance of local and crossbred dairy cattle at the Asella Livestock Farm, Arsi, Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E., Steel, R. L. and Brand, D. G. 1986. Prepartum grain feeding and subsequent lactation forage programme effects on performance of dairy cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 734–744.Google Scholar
Otchere, E. O. 1986. The effects of supplementary feeding of traditionally managed Bunaji cows. In Livestock systems research in Nigeria’s subhumid zone (ed. Kauffmann, R. von, Chater, S. and Blench, R.), proceedings of the 2nd ILCA/NAPRI symposium, Raduna, Nigeria, 29 October-2 November 1984, pp. 204–212. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Rege, J. E. O. 1998. Utilization of exotic germplasm for milk production in the tropics. Proceedings of the sixth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Armidale, vol. 25, pp. 193–200.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
Richardson, G. H. 1985. Standard methods for the examination of dairy products, 15th edition, p. 355–358. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. and Kennelly, J. S. 1991. Influence of degradability of supplemental protein and time postpartum in early lactation dairy cows. 1. Rumen fermentation and milk production. Livestock Production Science 28: 121–138.Google Scholar
Schaar, J., Brannang, E. and Meskel, L. B. 1981. Breeding activities of the Ethio-Swedish integrated rural development project. 2. Milk production of zebu and crossbred cattle. World Animal Review 37: 31–36.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Broadbent, P. J. and Hutchison, J. S. M. 1994. The effect of pre- and post-partum energy and protein supply on the performance of single- and twin-suckling beef cows and their calves. Animal Production 59: 379–389.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Pegram, R. G., Burt, S., Killorn, K. J., Oosterwijk, G., Paterson, A. and Wilsmore, A. J. 1991. Effect of dry season supplementation of Sanga cattle in Zambia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 23: 103–105.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 6, 4th edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1988. Crossbreeding for increased milk production in the tropics. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science 2: 179–185.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1989. Dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: performance of secondary crossbred populations. Livestock Production Science 23: 97–106.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1990. Dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: the importance of genotype × environmental interactions. Livestock Production Science 24: 109–119.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. 1993. Milk yield and lactation length of tropical cattle. World Animal Review 74/75: 68–72.Google Scholar
Taneja, V. K. and Bhat, P. N. 1986. Milk and beef production in tropical environments Proceedings of the third world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Lincoln, vol. 9, pp. 73–91.Google Scholar
Tawah, C. L. and Mbah, D. A. 1989. Cattle breed evaluation and improvement in Cameroon. A review of the situation. Institut des Recherches Zootechniques, Wakwa, Ngaoundere, Cameroon.Google Scholar
Tawah, C. L. and Rege, J. E. O. 1996. White Fulani cattle of West and Central Africa. Animal Genetic Resources Information 17: 137–158.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W., Kang’ethe, P., Rege, J. E. O., Mosi, R. O., Mwandotto, B. A. J. and Njuguna, P. 1993. Crossbreeding Ayrshire, Friesian and Sahiwal cattle for milk yield and pre-weaning traits of progeny in the semi-arid tropics of Kenya. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 2001–2012.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. S., Petersen, M. K., Ansotegui, R. A. and Bellows, R. A. 1991. Production from first-calf beef heifers fed a maintenance or low level of prepartum nutrition and ruminally undegradable or degradarle protein postpartum. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4279–4293.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. T., Ward, P. M., Saeed, A. M. and Light, D. 1987. Milk production characteristics of the Kenana breed of Bos indicus in Sudan. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2673–2679.Google Scholar