Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:00:39.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Direct and maternal genetic parameters for growth traits in Jersey crossbred cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2024

Nunhlupuii Vangchhia
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Indrajit Gayari
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Mokidur Rahman
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Sylvia Lalhmingmawii
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Champak Bhakat
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
Hasan Baneh
Affiliation:
Project Center for Agro Technologies, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia
Ajoy Mandal*
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal, India
*
Corresponding author: Ajoy Mandal; Email: ajoymandal@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth data on Jersey crossbred calves, maintained at ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India, were collected and analysed to assess the influence of maternal effects on growth traits of calves. Traits considered for this study were birth weight (BW) and weights at 3 months (W3M), 6 months (W6M), 9 months (W9M) and 12 months (W12M) of age. Least-squares analyses were employed to obtain the effects of non-genetic factors on the traits of interest. Determination of influence of maternal effects on growth traits was estimated by fitting three univariate animal models (including or excluding maternal effects) using Bayesian approach. The most appropriate model for each trait was selected based on Deviance Information Criterion. Direct heritability (h2) estimates for BW, W3M, W6M, W9M and W12M were 0.31 ± 0.08, 0.26 ± 0.10, 0.48 ± 0.10, 0.44 ± 0.11 and 0.39 ± 0.14, respectively, under the best model. Permanent environmental maternal effects (c2) varied from 0.04 to 0.12 for all traits. Existence of maternal effects for all ages reflects the importance of maternal components for these traits. Moderate to high heritability estimates for growth traits indicate the possibility of modest genetic progress for these traits through selection under prevalent management system.

Type
Animal Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Evaluation of the growth performance traits in beef cattle is crucial to ascertain the potentiality of the beef breeds and to formulate the appropriate breeding programme for genetic improvement of the breed (Pires et al., Reference Pires, Tholon, Buzanskas, Sbardella, Rosa, da Silva, de Almeida Torres, Munari and de Alencar2016). Early growth traits of calves are influenced not only by calf's own genetic potential but also maternal effects including maternal genetic and permanent environmental effects, which represent the dam's milk production and mothering ability (Meyer, Reference Meyer1992). Maternal effects are especially important in early life but also may have carry-over effects later in life. According to Robison (Reference Robison1981), the importance of maternal influence on the growth of young mammals has been recognized since the earliest attempts to improve livestock production. Willham (Reference Willham1972) stated that though the maternal effect is strictly of environmental origin relative to offspring, phenotypic differences among dams for the maternal effects reflected in the phenotypic values of offspring.

Body weights are often recorded at a relatively early age, so explained variance of these traits due to maternal effects needs to be quantified for optimizing breeding programmes. Published literature (Aziz et al., Reference Aziz, Nishida, Suzuki and Nishida2005; Ríos-Utrera et al., Reference Ríos-Utrera, Vega-Murillo, Martinez-Velazquez and Montano-Bermudez2011; Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Dassonneville, Bejarano, Jimenez, Even, Meszaros and Sölkner2016) showed that both direct and maternal effects play an important role on animal growth. Later in life, the maternal influence diminishes and direct effects of the genes that influence growth assume primary importance. Several authors (Meyer, Reference Meyer1992; Rumph et al., Reference Rumph, Koch, Gregory, Cundiff and Van Vleck2002) reported that if the maternal genetic effects are important for any early expressing traits, but not included in the model, then it yielded upward and bias estimation of direct heritability and decreased the selection efficiency of the trait. With the advancement of latest statistical methodology for estimation of variance components, it became possible to partition the variance into direct and maternal effects for growth traits. The reported heritability estimates for growth traits of dairy cattle breeds in India are mostly based on variance components obtained by sire model, where maternal effects are ignored (Sahin et al., Reference Sahin, Ulutas, Yilmaz Adkinson and Adkinson2012). Therefore, accurate estimation of the size of effects of maternal lineage is required to assess the impact of their effects on genetic evaluations of growth traits. Hence, the aim of the present study was to estimate the (co)variance components and genetic parameters due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits in Jersey crossbred cattle.

Materials and methods

Animals and data

Data on birth weight and weights at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of age of Jersey crossbred calves were collected for a period of 39 years (1983–2021) and 9 years (2013–2021), respectively, for the present study. In this study, the crossbred animals were produced from the mating of two Bos indicus breeds, Tharparkar and Red Sindhi by outcrossing using imported semen of Jersey breed. A total of 12 genetic groups having different levels of Jersey inheritance produced in the breeding programme were used in this study. The details of experimental animals as well as location and climatic conditions of the farm have been described by Koloi and Mandal (Reference Koloi and Mandal2020) and Kumar and Mandal (Reference Kumar and Mandal2021). Briefly, the animals in this farm were generally maintained under loose and open housing system assuring adequate air exchange and exercise. Animals were kept separately according to their age groups and physiological stages. Calves up to 3 months of age are reared in separately constructed calves' shed. The calves of more than 3 months to 1 year of age and heifers from 2 years to conception were kept in different open paddocks with sheds. Pregnant animals are generally separated from dry animals and kept in different sheds. Both calves and dams were weighed at calving and calves are tagged after birth. Just after birth, colostrum is fed to each calf thrice in a day up to 3 days. After 3 days, calves are fed with whole milk twice in a day (morning and evening) using sterile bottle based on their body weight (at 10% body weight). Calves were provided the whole milk for a period of 3 months. Calves are generally dehorned during the first month of life. The lactating animals of the farm were provided with a standard ratio of concentrate and ad libitum green fodder. Standard prophylactic measures were followed as a routine for all animals. The calving date, sex and birth type of each calf were recorded. Calves were weighed at 15-day intervals from birth to 3 months of age and thereafter at monthly intervals up to 12 months of age.

Records of 2022 calves, descended from 609 dams and 71 sires, were available for this investigation. Data on postnatal weights were not collected over the entire 39 years, yielding dissimilar numbers of records for different traits. Traits considered for the present study were weight at birth (BW), 3 months (W3M), 6 months (W6M), 9 months (W9M) and 12 months of age (W12M). The characteristics of data and pedigree structure for the traits under study are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1. Characteristics of data structure for body weights (kg) of Jersey crossbred cattle

BW, birth weight; W3M, weight at 3 months; W6M, weight at 6 months; W9M, weight at 9 months; W12M, weight at 12 months.

Table 2. Characteristics of the pedigree structure of the data used for the study

BW, birth weight; W3M, weight at 3 months; W6M, weight at 6 months; W9M, weight at 9 months; W12M, weight at 12 months.

Statistical analysis

Estimates of (co)variance components and genetic parameters for the traits were performed through the Gibbs sampling method in a single trait analysis by fitting a series of univariate animal models by Bayesian approach implemented in BLUPF90 software (Misztal, Reference Misztal1999). Initially, the factors affecting the growth traits were tested using least-squares analysis of variance (Harvey, Reference Harvey1990). The fixed effects considered in the initial model were birth year, season of birth, dam's parity and sex of calves. The significant effects for each trait were included in the final mixed models used for genetic analysis. The Gibbs chains of 200 000 iterations, with a burn-in of the initial 20 000 samples, and a sampling interval of 100 iterations were generated. Therefore, for each analysis, 1800 samples of (co)variance components were available and genetic parameters were estimated as the average ratio of sample variances. The convergence diagnostic of the chains generated by the Gibbs sample chains was undertaken using Geweke test algorithm (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Domingue, Paschal, Franke, Bidner and Whipple2007). Convergence was tested for all parameters using effective sample size from the program POSTGIBBSF90 (Misztal et al., Reference Misztal, Tsuruta, Lourenço, Aguilar, Legara and Vitezica2014).

To assess the impact of maternal effects on estimation of variance components and genetic parameters of growth traits, the following three univariate animal models, including or excluding maternal effects, were employed for each trait:

$${\rm Model}\,{\rm 1\colon }\,{\bf y} = {\bf X}{\boldsymbol \beta } + {\bf Z}_{\bf 1}{\bf a} + {\bf e}$$
$${\rm Model}\,{\rm 2\colon }\,{\bf y} = {\bf X}{\boldsymbol \beta } + {\bf Z}_{\bf 1}{\bf a} + {\bf Z}_{\bf 3}{\bf c} + {\bf e}$$
$${\rm Model}\;{\rm 3\colon }\,{\bf y} = {\bf X}{\boldsymbol \beta }{\rm} + {\bf Z}_{\bf 1}{\bf a}{\rm} + {\bf Z}_{\bf 2}{\bf m}{\rm} + {\bf e}\;{\rm with}\;{\rm Cov}( {{\bf a, \;m}} ) {\rm} = 0$$

where y is the n × 1 vector of observations for each trait and X is the incidence matrix that relates data to the unknown vector of fixed effects β. Incidence matrices, Z1 and Z2 relate unknown vectors of direct (a) and maternal (m) breeding values, respectively, to y. The incidence matrix Z3 relates an unknown additional random vector of permanent maternal environmental effects (c) to y. The unknown vector e contains random residuals due to environmental effects peculiar to individual records. It was assumed that V(a) = Aσ 2a, V(m) = Aσ 2m, V(c) = Idσ 2c, and V(e) = Inσ 2e where A is the numerator relationship matrix, and Id and In are the identity matrix with dimension equal to the number of dams and number of records, respectively, and σ 2a, σ 2m, σ 2c and σ 2e are direct additive genetic, maternal additive genetic, maternal permanent environmental and residual variances, respectively. Estimated variance and covariance components were used to obtain direct heritability (h 2 = σ 2a/σ 2p), maternal heritability (m 2 = σ 2m/σ 2p), maternal permanent environmental variance as a proportion of phenotypic variance (c 2 = σ 2c/σ 2p). σ 2p is the phenotypic variance of the trait. For estimation of expected response to selection, the heritability of the total genetic contribution to a maternally influenced trait was calculated as: h 2t = h 2 + 0.5m 2 + 1.5mr amh (Willham, Reference Willham1972) and the total maternal effect was calculated as: t m = ¼ h 2 + m 2 + c 2 + mr amh to estimate the repeatability of dam performance, m and h are the square root of h 2 and m 2, respectively.

The Deviance Information Criterion (DIC; Spiegelhalter et al., Reference Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin and van der Linde2002), which is a Bayesian version of the classical deviance for model evaluation, was used for model comparison and to choose the best model for each trait. The DIC is estimated as follows: $DIC = \bar{D}( \theta ) + P_D = 2\bar{D}( \theta ) + D( {\bar{\theta }} )$ where $\bar{D}( \theta ) = E_{0\vert y} = [ {\bar{D}( \theta ) } ]$0 is the posterior expectation of Bayesian deviance and D(θ) = −2log (y|0) corresponds to the goodness of fit of the model (Spiegelhalter et al., Reference Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin and van der Linde2002). A significant difference between the two models exists when their DIC difference is greater than 7 and the model with smaller DIC value was chosen as the best-fitted model (Sadeghi et al., Reference Sadeghi, Rokouei, Valleh, Abbasi and Faraji-Arough2020).

Results

Numbers of observations and descriptive statistics including phenotypic mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation for body weights traits studied for Jersey crossbred calves have been depicted in Table 1. In this dataset, the male and female calves represented approximately 0.50 of the data. Coefficients of variation for body weights of calves at different ages ranged from 15.7% (W12M) to 17.8% (BW) in this study.

Environmental effects

The least-squares means for body weights of Jersey crossbred calves at birth, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of ages were 22.7 ± 0.19, 54 ± 1.4, 87 ± 4.3, 122 ± 5.9 and 156 ± 6.0 kg, respectively (Table 3). In our study, effect of period of birth was significant (P < 0.05) for all growth traits of Jersey crossbred calves. All growth traits except W12M were significantly influenced by season of birth of calves. Calves born in winter season showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher body weights from birth to 9 months of age than those born in either summer season or rainy seasons. Parity of dam had a significant (P < 0.01) influence only on birth weight of Jersey crossbred calves, such that the calves born from first parity of dam were lighter at birth compared to those born from older cows. Also, male calves significantly (P < 0.05) excelled in body weights at birth, 3 and 6 months of ages than their female counterparts. Further, birth weight and 3-month weight of calves were significantly influenced by genetic groups of animals in this study.

Table 3. Least-squares means ± standard errors of different body weights (in kg) in Jersey crossbred cattle

Values in parenthesis indicate number of observations.

NS represents non-significant; * and ** represent the significance at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 level, respectively.

Model comparisons and genetic parameter estimates

Estimates of (co)variance components and genetic parameters for all growth traits for each analysis under three different models along with their DIC value are summarized in Table 4. The converged parameter chains of additive genetic variance were used to obtain variance components of all growth traits under different relationship matrices by Bayesian inference (Gibbs sampling), according to the Geweke diagnostic (the ratio between the first half and second half of the samples should be <1). The heritability estimates showed relevant variation in different growth traits (Table 4).

Table 4. Estimates of (co)variance components (kg2) and genetic parameters for growth traits along with their posterior standard deviation in Jersey crossbred cattle

$\sigma _{\rm a}^2$, direct additive genetic variance; $\sigma _{\rm m}^2$, maternal additive genetic variance; σ am, direct-maternal genetic covariance; $\sigma _{\rm c}^2$, maternal permanent environmental variance; $\sigma _{\rm e}^2$, residual variance; $\sigma _{\rm p}^2$, phenotypic variance; h 2, direct heritability; m 2, maternal heritability; r am, direct-maternal genetic correlation; c 2: σ c2/σ p2; h 2t, total heritability; t m, repeatability of the dam performance; DIC, Deviance Information Criteria.

The model in bold represents the most appropriate model.

Birth weight

Estimates of direct heritability (h 2) for BW rely upon the model used, varying from 0.18 to 0.44. Model 1, which ignored maternal effects, resulted in overestimation of direct heritability. Incorporating the permanent environmental maternal (c 2) effect into model 2 caused a decline in additive direct heritability by 31% as compared to model 1, and this effect was estimated as 0.12. Further, addition of c 2 effect in model 2 significantly decreased the DIC value in comparison with model 1. Fitting the maternal genetic (m 2) effect instead of c 2 effect in model 3 resulted in a further decrease of additive direct heritability by 41% than model 2, and this model explained the maternal genetic variance as 0.19 to the total phenotypic variance. Based on the lowest DIC value, the model which included only direct and maternal permanent environmental effects (model 2) was the best-fitted model for birth weight in Jersey crossbred calves in the present dataset. Estimates of the total heritability (h 2t) for this trait under different models ranged from 0.27 to 0.44 with the estimate of 0.30 under the best model. The estimate of total maternal effect (t m) on birth weight, which comprises of both total maternal and dam transmitted additive genetic effects, was found to be 0.20 under the best model, and ranged from 0.11 (model 1) to 0.24 (model 3).

Weight at 3 months

Ignoring maternal effects (model 1) produced higher estimates of direct h 2 than other models. Fitting a permanent environmental maternal (c 2) effect (model 2) decreased both the estimates of σ 2a and h 2 to the tune of 18 and 16%, respectively, for this trait (Table 4). Model 3, which included both the direct and maternal additive (m 2) effects, yielded an estimate of m 2 (0.16) with a corresponding reduction of the estimates of direct heritability to 0.14. Hence, model 2 which included only direct genetic and maternal permanent environmental effects was considered as the most suitable model for W3M in Jersey crossbred cattle. Estimates of h 2t and t m for W3M varied from 0.22 to 0.32 and 0.08 to 0.20, respectively, under the three different models with the corresponding estimates of 0.26 and 0.14 under the best-fitted model (Table 4).

Weights at 6, 9 and 12 months

In model 1, where all sources of maternal effects were disregarded, the direct heritability estimates were 0.50, 0.44 and 0.41 for W6M, W9M and W12M, respectively. Introducing the maternal permanent environmental (c 2) effect in model 2 produced the similar or slight reduction of direct heritability for W6M (0.48), W9M (0.44) and W12M (0.40) as compared to model 1. The c 2 effects for these traits were detected as 0.04, 0.05 and 0.05, respectively. In comparison to model 1, there was significant improvement in DIC values for W6M, W9M and W12M. Fitting maternal genetic (m 2), along with direct genetic effect in model 3, explained a low proportion (0.10) of the total phenotypic variance for body weight traits from 6 to 12 months of age in Jersey crossbred calves. Therefore, the model which included only direct genetic and maternal permanent environmental effects (model 2) was the most preferred model to describe the body weights at 6, 9 and 12 months of age in this study. The total heritability (h 2t) estimates for W6M, W9M and W12M varied from 0. 47 to 0.50, 0.44 (for all three traits) and 0.14 to 0.42, respectively, under different models in Jersey crossbred calves and the corresponding estimates were of 0.48, 0.44 and 0.40, respectively, under the best-fitted model. Further, the total maternal effect (t m) of weights at 6, 9 and 12 months of age was 0.16, 0.16 and 0.15, respectively, under the most appropriate model (Table 4).

Discussion

In the present study, the coefficients of variation for body weights of calves at different ages were within the range of reported values for other cattle breeds (Eler et al., Reference Eler, Van Vleck, Ferraz and Lobo1995; Abera et al., Reference Abera, Abegaz and Mekasha2012; Lopes et al., Reference Lopes, Magnabosco, Paulini, da Silva, Miyagi and Lobo2013). This study showed that various environmental factors had a significant influence on most of the growth traits in Jersey crossbred calves. The significant effects of period of birth on birth weight (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Mirza, Akhtar, Mubeen, Shakeel and Irfan2019; Gessesse et al., Reference Gessesse, Dagnew, Abegaz and Tesfa2021; Setiaji et al., Reference Setiaji, Rohadi, Widyas and Prastowo2022), 3-month weight (Rahman et al., Reference Rahman, Bhuiyan and Bhuiyan2015; Sagar et al., Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017), 6-month weight (Nahar et al., Reference Nahar, Islam, Hoque and Bhuiyan2016; Sagar et al., Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017), 9-month weight (Nahar et al., Reference Nahar, Islam, Hoque and Bhuiyan2016) and 12-month weight (Nahar et al., Reference Nahar, Islam, Hoque and Bhuiyan2016; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Mirza, Akhtar, Mubeen, Shakeel and Irfan2019; Setiaji et al., Reference Setiaji, Rohadi, Widyas and Prastowo2022) were observed in different cattle breeds and their crosses, which aligned with the findings of the present study. The significant influence of period of birth on all growth traits in our study may be due to variations in management practices of the farm, use of differential sires as well as fluctuations of environmental conditions such as temperature, precipitation and humidity over the years. The significant variations of body weights at birth, 3, 6, and 9 months of age in calves born in different seasons, as observed in the current study, were well in agreement with the findings of Sagar et al. (Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017), Khan et al. (Reference Khan, Mirza, Akhtar, Mubeen, Shakeel and Irfan2019) and Gessesse et al. (Reference Gessesse, Dagnew, Abegaz and Tesfa2021) in Vrindavani, Simmental × Angus × Charolais × Hereford and Fogera cattle, respectively. In our study, winter-born calves had higher birth weight than calves born in summer or rainy season because pregnant dams of winter-born calves were exposed to favourable climatic conditions, i.e. rainy season when the availability of feeds and fodders is abundant, and as a result, pregnant dams receive sufficient amounts of feeds and fodders for the development of her foetus as well as mammary glands and ultimately it results in heavier birth weight of the calves. As observed in the current study, the significant effects of parity of dam on birth weight of calves were reported by Abera et al. (Reference Abera, Abegaz and Mekasha2012) in Horro crossbred and Cortes-Lacruz et al. (Reference Cortes-Lacruz, Casasus, Revilla, Sanz, Blanco and Villalba2017) in Parda de Montaña cattle. The lower birth weight of calves obtained from cows of first parity in this study may be resultant of relative competition for nutrients between the still growing cows and developing foetus during pregnancy period of animals. Similar to the present findings, the significant effects of genetic group on body weights were noticed by Bitew et al. (Reference Bitew, Taye, Kebede, Mekuriaw, Tassew, Mulugeta and Goshu2010), Haile et al. (Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) and Gessesse et al. (Reference Gessesse, Dagnew, Abegaz and Tesfa2021) in different crossbred cattle. Our study obtained higher body weights of males than females from birth to 6 months of age. Homologous results were inferred by Gessesse et al. (Reference Gessesse, Dagnew, Abegaz and Tesfa2021) in Fogera cattle, Cortes-Lacruz et al. (Reference Cortes-Lacruz, Casasus, Revilla, Sanz, Blanco and Villalba2017) in Parda de Montaña cattle and Setiaji et al. (Reference Setiaji, Rohadi, Widyas and Prastowo2022) in Bali cattle. Non-significant differences of body weights at 9 and 12 months of age between males and females, as observed in this study, were also reported by Bitew et al. (Reference Bitew, Taye, Kebede, Mekuriaw, Tassew, Mulugeta and Goshu2010) in Fogera and Holstein Friesian cattle and Nahar et al. (Reference Nahar, Islam, Hoque and Bhuiyan2016) in Red Chittagong cattle. The heavier body weights of males than females at different ages might be due to differences in sexual chromosomes (X vs. Y) and hormones between males and females.

Our estimate of direct heritability (h 2) of birth weight for Jersey crossbred calves (0.31, Model 2) was similar to those reported for purebred (Wasike et al., Reference Wasike, Indetie, Ojango and Kahi2009; Chud et al., Reference Chud, Caetano, Buzanskas, Grossi, Guidolin, Nascimento, Rosa, Lobo and Munari2014; Ramírez et al., Reference Ramírez, Burgos Paz, Elzo, Martinez Sarmiento and Ceron-Munoz2020) and crossbred (Haile et al., Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhu, Wang, Wang, Hao, Du and Zhao2012) cattle. However, lower (Sagar et al., Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017; Almasri et al., Reference Almasri, AL-Dakkak, Abo-Bakr and Ibrahim2020; Carvalho et al., Reference Carvalho, Espigolan, Berton, Neto, Silva, Grigoletto, Silva, Ferraz, Eler, Aguilar, Lobo and Baldi2020) and higher (Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Dassonneville, Bejarano, Jimenez, Even, Meszaros and Sölkner2016; Cortes-Lacruz et al., Reference Cortes-Lacruz, Casasus, Revilla, Sanz, Blanco and Villalba2017) estimates of direct h 2 for this trait have been reported in various breeds of cattle. The estimated moderate heritability of birth weight in this study suggests that there is ample scope of improving this trait genetically through selection. However, selection for this trait should be performed with caution, due to the relationship of birth weight with dystocia and stillbirth in cows. The explained proportion of phenotypic variance of birth weight by permanent environmental maternal effect (c 2 = 0.12) from model 2 was well in agreement with the study of Ríos-Utrera et al. (Reference Ríos-Utrera, Vega-Murillo, Martinez-Velazquez and Montano-Bermudez2011) in Limousin cattle (0.11), Chud et al. (Reference Chud, Caetano, Buzanskas, Grossi, Guidolin, Nascimento, Rosa, Lobo and Munari2014) in Nellore cattle (0.10) and Lopez et al. (Reference Lopez, Santiago, Seo, Jeong, Park, Chai, Park and Lim2020) in Hanwoo cattle (0.12). However, c 2 estimates reported by several authors (Sahin et al., Reference Sahin, Ulutas, Yilmaz Adkinson and Adkinson2012; Chud et al., Reference Chud, Caetano, Buzanskas, Grossi, Guidolin, Nascimento, Rosa, Lobo and Munari2014; Carvalho et al., Reference Carvalho, Espigolan, Berton, Neto, Silva, Grigoletto, Silva, Ferraz, Eler, Aguilar, Lobo and Baldi2020) in different purebred/crossbred cattle were lower than the present estimate. In comparison to our study, higher c 2 estimates (0.24) for this trait were observed by Haile et al. (Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) in Boran cattle. In our study, lower c 2 effect for birth weight clearly indicates the existence of large environmental influence on milk production of animals. The moderate total heritability estimate for birth weight (0.30) was within the range of other estimates as reported by various researchers (Meyer, Reference Meyer1992; Shi et al., Reference Shi, Laloe, Menissier and Renand1993) in various cattle breeds. The obtained value of t m for birth weight in the current work showed a high similarity across the models (in a range of 0.11–0.24; Table 4) indicating the consistency in estimating the repeatability of dam performance across the different statistical mixed linear models fitting the maternal effects. The estimated total heritability (h 2t) and repeatability of dam performance (t m) for birth weight were substantial and moderate in magnitude (⩾0.20), indicating the potential genetic and phenotypic progress is expected through selection of this trait.

The estimate of direct heritability for 3-month weight (0.26) of Jersey crossbred calves from the most appropriate model (model 2) was well comparable with the findings of Haile et al. (Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) in Boran × HF crosses, Cortes-Lacruz et al. (Reference Cortes-Lacruz, Casasus, Revilla, Sanz, Blanco and Villalba2017) in Parda de Montaña cattle, Sagar et al. (Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017) in Vrindavani cattle. However, several workers (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Lee, Choy, Na and Kim2005; Dezfuli and Mashayekhi, Reference Dezfuli and Mashayekhi2009; Almasri et al., Reference Almasri, AL-Dakkak, Abo-Bakr and Ibrahim2020) have reported the lower estimates in different breeds/crosses of cattle, ranging from 0.03 to 0.13, for this trait. Higher estimates than our study were also reported by Aziz et al. (Reference Aziz, Nishida, Suzuki and Nishida2005) in Japanese Black cattle (0.53), Haile et al. (Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) in Boran cattle (0.43), Afroz et al. (Reference Afroz, Hoque and Bhuiyan2011) in Red Chittagong cattle (0.49), Rahman et al. (Reference Rahman, Bhuiyan and Bhuiyan2015) in HF crossbred (0.46) and Lopez et al. (Reference Lopez, Santiago, Seo, Jeong, Park, Chai, Park and Lim2020) in Hanwoo cattle (0.51). The moderate heritability estimate for 3-month weight in our investigation might be due to ideal nutritional status of dam and management practices resulting in a minute environmental discrepancy. In our study, permanent environmental maternal effect (c 2 effect) for 3-month weight under the best model was detected as 0.07. Similar estimates of c 2 effect for 3-month body weight were observed by Hwang et al. (Reference Hwang, Choi, Kim, Choy, Kim, Lee and Kim2008) in Hanwoo cattle (0.06) and Hussein et al. (Reference Hussein, Kamal El-den, Sanad-Safaa and Shehab El-Din2022) in Friesian cattle (0.04). On the contrary, higher (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Lee, Choy, Na and Kim2005; Haile et al., Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) and lower (Dezfuli and Mashayekhi, Reference Dezfuli and Mashayekhi2009; Haile et al., Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011) estimates of c 2 have been reported for this trait.

In our study, high direct heritability estimates for W6M (0.48), W9M (0.44) and W12M (0.39) were observed in Jersey crossbred cattle (Table 4). Several researchers have reported high h 2 estimates for 6-month (Aziz et al., Reference Aziz, Nishida, Suzuki and Nishida2005; Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutierrez, Goyache, Fernandez, Alvarez and Royo2007; Rabeya et al., Reference Rabeya, Bhuiyan, Habib and Hossain2009; Afroz et al., Reference Afroz, Hoque and Bhuiyan2011), 9-month (Aziz et al., Reference Aziz, Nishida, Suzuki and Nishida2005; Rabeya et al., Reference Rabeya, Bhuiyan, Habib and Hossain2009; Afroz et al., Reference Afroz, Hoque and Bhuiyan2011) and 12-month weight (Schiermiester et al., Reference Schiermiester, Thallman, Kuehn, Kachman and Spangler2015; Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Dassonneville, Bejarano, Jimenez, Even, Meszaros and Sölkner2016; Rezende et al., Reference Rezende, Malhado, Biffani, Carrillo-Tabakman, Fabbri, Crovetti, Carneiro and Bozzi2022) in various cattle breeds, which were well comparable with our findings. However, Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Zhu, Wang, Wang, Hao, Du and Zhao2012), Sagar et al. (Reference Sagar, Baranwal, Saini, Kumar and Prasad2017) and Majoya et al. (Reference Majoya, Khobondo, Tura and Muasya2022) reported lower estimates of direct h 2 for 6-month body weight than our findings. Lower estimates for 9-month weight (Wasike et al., Reference Wasike, Ilatsia, Ojango and Kahi2006, Reference Wasike, Indetie, Ojango and Kahi2009) and 12-month weight (Wasike et al., Reference Wasike, Indetie, Ojango and Kahi2009; Ríos-Utrera et al., Reference Ríos-Utrera, Vega-Murillo, Martinez-Velazquez and Montano-Bermudez2011; Majoya et al., Reference Majoya, Khobondo, Tura and Muasya2022) than our study have been observed in different breeds of cattle. The permanent environmental maternal effects (c 2) for W6M, W9M and W12M in this study were low (0.04–0.05) in magnitude, and were in agreement with the reports of several published literature (Aziz et al., Reference Aziz, Nishida, Suzuki and Nishida2005; Wasike et al., Reference Wasike, Ilatsia, Ojango and Kahi2006; Haile et al., Reference Haile, Joshi, Ayalew, Tegegne and Singh2011; Ríos-Utrera et al., Reference Ríos-Utrera, Vega-Murillo, Martinez-Velazquez and Montano-Bermudez2011). The considerable heritability estimates for weights at 6, 9 and 12 months of age in our study reflected the presence of substantial additive genetic variances associated with these traits. This implies that there is a significant potential for enhancing the body weights of Jersey crossbred calves at these ages through genetic selection within the prevailing management system. Low proportion of phenotypic variation explained by the permanent environmental maternal effect (c 2) observed for these weight traits illustrates that there is an indication of limited intervention of environmental influence on these traits of the calves. The estimated total heritabilities (h 2t) for all growth traits under consideration were moderate to high, which was consistent with reported results for the other cattle breeds (Meyer, Reference Meyer1992; Shi et al., Reference Shi, Laloe, Menissier and Renand1993; Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, Morris, Baker and Johnson1993), reflecting that simultaneous consideration of both direct and maternal effects in the genetic evaluation programmes could be effective for optimum genetic progress of these traits.

Conclusion

The results of the present study revealed that several non-genetic factors had a substantial effect on most of the growth traits of Jersey crossbred calves; therefore, effective strategies (e.g. feeding pattern and management practices) should be taken into consideration for managing the herd. The study further confirmed the usefulness of applying the appropriate model for estimation of variance–covariance components and genetic parameters for growth traits of crossbred calves. If maternal effects are important for the trait of interest and not included in the models, it may lead to overestimation of direct heritability of the trait. Though the permanent environmental maternal effects decrease with advancement of age, this factor still has some impact on growth in later ages. So, both direct and maternal components should be taken into consideration in formulating the effective breeding programme for improving these traits genetically.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Director, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal, Haryana for extending the financial support to carry out this work. The authors also thank the Head, ICAR-NDRI, Eastern Regional Station, Kalyani, West Bengal for his support. The contribution of the staff of the cattle yard for proper maintenance of animal and data of this herd is also acknowledged.

Author contributions

A. M., H. B. and C. B. conceived and designed the research. N. V., I. G., M. R. and S. L. conducted experiments. N. V. and I. G. analysed the data. N. V., M. R. and S. L. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. A. M., H. B. and C. B. corrected the first draft and prepared the final draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Funding statement

Financial support for this study was provided by the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India.

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with live animals performed by any of the authors.

References

Abera, H, Abegaz, S and Mekasha, Y (2012) Influence of non-genetic factors on growth traits of Horro (Zebu) and their crosses with Holstein Friesian and Jersey cattle. International Journal of Livestock Production 3, 7277.Google Scholar
Afroz, MA, Hoque, MA and Bhuiyan, AKFH (2011) Estimation of heritability for growth traits of Red Chittagong cattle in a nucleus herd. Bangladesh Veterinarian 28, 3946.10.3329/bvet.v28i1.8812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almasri, OAK, AL-Dakkak, M, Abo-Bakr, S and Ibrahim, MA (2020) Genetic and environmental influences on birth weight, weaning weight and average daily gain of Holstein calves in Syrian coast conditions. Egyptian Journal of Animal Production 57, 127132.10.21608/ejap.2020.121423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aziz, MA, Nishida, S, Suzuki, K and Nishida, A (2005) Estimation of direct and maternal genetic and permanent environmental effects for weights from birth to 356 days of age in a herd of Japanese Black cattle using random regression. Journal of Animal Science 83, 519530.10.2527/2005.833519xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitew, A, Taye, M, Kebede, A, Mekuriaw, G, Tassew, A, Mulugeta, T and Goshu, G (2010) Milk yield and calf growth performance of cattle under partial suckling system at Andassa Livestock Research Centre, North West Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 22, 136. Available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/8/bite22136.htmGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, FED, Espigolan, R, Berton, MP, Neto, JBS, Silva, RPD, Grigoletto, L, Silva, RMDO, Ferraz, JBS, Eler, JP, Aguilar, I, Lobo, RB and Baldi, F (2020) Genome-wide association study and predictive ability for growth traits in Nellore cattle. Livestock Science 231, 103861.10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J, Zhu, HB, Wang, D, Wang, FQ, Hao, HS, Du, WH and Zhao, XM (2012) Estimation of genetic parameters for growth traits in a crossbred population derived from Piedmontese and Nanyang cattle using a multi-trait animal model. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 11, 15701573.Google Scholar
Choi, SB, Lee, JW, Choy, YH, Na, KJ and Kim, NS (2005) Estimates of parameters for genetic relationship between reproductive performances and body condition score of Hanwoo cows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 18, 909914.10.5713/ajas.2005.909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chud, TC, Caetano, SL, Buzanskas, ME, Grossi, DA, Guidolin, DG, Nascimento, GB, Rosa, JO, Lobo, RB and Munari, DP (2014) Genetic analysis for gestation length, birth weight, weaning weight, and accumulated productivity in Nellore beef cattle. Livestock Science 170, 1621.10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes-Lacruz, X, Casasus, I, Revilla, R, Sanz, A, Blanco, M and Villalba, D (2017) The milk yield of dams and its relation to direct and maternal genetic components of weaning weight in beef cattle. Livestock Science 202, 143149.10.1016/j.livsci.2017.05.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dezfuli, BT and Mashayekhi, MR (2009) Genetic study of birth weight and weaning weight in Najdi calves. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8, 276280. Available at https://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=javaa.2009.276.280Google Scholar
Eler, JP, Van Vleck, LD, Ferraz, JB and Lobo, RB (1995) Estimation of variances due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Nellore cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 32533258.10.2527/1995.73113253xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gessesse, T, Dagnew, Y, Abegaz, S and Tesfa, A (2021) Growth performance and survival rate of Fogera and their crossbred calves at government ranches in Ethiopia. Frontiers in Animal Science 2, 745682.10.3389/fanim.2021.745682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, JP, Goyache, F, Fernandez, I, Alvarez, I and Royo, LJ (2007) Genetic relationships among calving ease, calving interval, birth weight, and weaning weight in the Asturiana de los Valles beef cattle breed. Journal of Animal Science 85, 6975.10.2527/jas.2006-168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haile, A, Joshi, BK, Ayalew, W, Tegegne, A and Singh, A (2011) Genetic evaluation of Ethiopian Boran cattle and their crosses with Holstein Friesian for growth performance in central Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 133140.10.1111/j.1439-0388.2010.00882.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, WR (1990) Users' Guide for LSMLMW and MIXMDL, Mixed Model Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood Computer Program. PC-2 Version. Columbus, USA: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hussein, EMA, Kamal El-den, MA, Sanad-Safaa, S and Shehab El-Din, MI (2022) Estimation of direct and maternal genetic parameters for pre-weaning growth traits in Friesian calves. Archives of Agriculture Sciences Journal 5, 5871.10.21608/aasj.2022.139214.1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, JM, Choi, JG, Kim, HC, Choy, YH, Kim, S, Lee, C and Kim, JB (2008) Genetic relationship of gestation length with birth and weaning weight in Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae). Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 21, 633639.10.5713/ajas.2008.70509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, MA, Mirza, RH, Akhtar, M, Mubeen, M, Shakeel, M and Irfan, M (2019) Factors affecting growth performances of Simmental, Angus, Charolais and Hereford beef crossbred calves under sub-tropical environment of Pakistan. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 29, 396401. Available at http://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/V-29-02/07.pdfGoogle Scholar
Koloi, S and Mandal, A (2020) Genetic analysis of persistency indices of milk yield in Jersey crossbred cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 87, 330333.10.1017/S0022029920000825CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, A and Mandal, A (2021) Evaluation of animal models to explore the influence of maternal genetic and maternal permanent environment effect on reproductive performance of Jersey crossbred cattle. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 56, 511518.10.1111/rda.13889CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, FB, Magnabosco, CU, Paulini, F, da Silva, MC, Miyagi, ES and Lobo, RB (2013) Genetic analysis of growth traits in polled Nellore cattle raised on pasture in tropical region using Bayesian approaches. PLoS ONE 8, e75423.10.1371/journal.pone.0075423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, BI, Santiago, KG, Seo, K, Jeong, T, Park, JE, Chai, HH, Park, W and Lim, D (2020) Genetic parameters of birth weight and weaning weight and their relationship with gestation length and age at first calving in Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae). Animals 10, 1083.10.3390/ani10061083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majoya, AM, Khobondo, JO, Tura, S and Muasya, TK (2022) Genetic variation and parameters for growth and feed efficiency traits in Boran beef cattle in Kenya. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry 7, 4145.Google Scholar
Martinez, RA, Dassonneville, R, Bejarano, D, Jimenez, A, Even, G, Meszaros, G and Sölkner, J (2016) Direct and maternal genetic effects on growth, reproduction, and ultrasound traits in zebu Brahman cattle in Colombia. Journal of Animal Science 94, 27612769.10.2527/jas.2016-0453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K (1992) Variance components due to direct and maternal effects for growth traits of Australian beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 31, 179204.10.1016/0301-6226(92)90017-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Lourenço, D, Aguilar, I, Legara, A and Vitezica, Z (2014) Manual for BLUPF90 Family of Programs. Athens: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Nahar, S, Islam, AFMF, Hoque, MA and Bhuiyan, AKFH (2016) Animal performance of indigenous Red Chittagong cattle in Bangladesh. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences 38, 177182.10.4025/actascianimsci.v38i2.28718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires, BC, Tholon, P, Buzanskas, ME, Sbardella, AP, Rosa, JO, da Silva, LOC, de Almeida Torres, RA, Munari, DP and de Alencar, MM (2016) Genetic analyses on body weight, reproductive, and carcass traits in composite beef cattle. Animal Production Science 57, 415421.10.1071/AN15458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabeya, T, Bhuiyan, AKFH, Habib, MA and Hossain, MS (2009) Phenotypic and genetic parameters for growth traits in Red Chittagong Cattle of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University 7, 265271.10.3329/jbau.v7i2.4733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, SMA, Bhuiyan, MSA and Bhuiyan, AKFH (2015) Effects of genetic and non-genetic factors on growth traits of high yielding dairy seed calves and genetic parameter estimates. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research 2, 450457.10.5455/javar.2015.b116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, TEJ, Burgos Paz, WO, Elzo, MA, Martinez Sarmiento, RA and Ceron-Munoz, MF (2020) Genetic parameters and trends for growth traits in Blanco Orejinegro cattle. Translational Animal Science 4, 19.Google Scholar
Rezende, MPG, Malhado, CHM, Biffani, S, Carrillo-Tabakman, JA, Fabbri, MC, Crovetti, A, Carneiro, PLS and Bozzi, R (2022) Heritability and genetic correlation of body weight and Kleiber ratio in Limousin and Charolais beef cattle breeds. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 16, 100528.10.1016/j.animal.2022.100528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ríos-Utrera, A, Vega-Murillo, VE, Martinez-Velazquez, G and Montano-Bermudez, M (2011) Comparison of models for the estimation of variance components for growth traits of registered Limousin cattle. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 14, 667674.Google Scholar
Robison, OW (1981) The influence of maternal effects on the efficiency of selection; a review. Livestock Production Science 8, 121137.10.1016/0301-6226(81)90016-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumph, JM, Koch, RM, Gregory, KE, Cundiff, LV and Van Vleck, LD (2002) Comparison of models for estimation of genetic parameters for mature weight of Hereford cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 583590.10.2527/2002.803583xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadeghi, SAT, Rokouei, M, Valleh, MV, Abbasi, MA and Faraji-Arough, H (2020) Estimation of additive and non-additive genetic variance component for growth traits in Adani goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production 52, 733742.10.1007/s11250-019-02064-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagar, NG, Baranwal, A, Saini, BL, Kumar, S and Prasad, AR (2017) Effect of non-genetic factors on the growth traits of Vrindavani cattle. International Journal of Livestock Research 7, 224230.Google Scholar
Sahin, A, Ulutas, Z, Yilmaz Adkinson, A and Adkinson, RW (2012) Estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters for birth weight of Brown Swiss calves in Turkey using an animal model. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44, 10271034.10.1007/s11250-011-0036-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiermiester, LN, Thallman, RM, Kuehn, LA, Kachman, SD and Spangler, ML (2015) Estimation of breed-specific heterosis effects for birth, weaning, and yearling weight in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 93, 4652.10.2527/jas.2014-8493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Setiaji, R, Rohadi, M, Widyas, N and Prastowo, S (2022) The effect of non-genetic factors on Bali Cattle (Bos javanicus) growth traits. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1020, 12001.Google Scholar
Shi, MJ, Laloe, D, Menissier, F and Renand, G (1993) Estimation of genetic parameters of preweaning performance in the French Limousin cattle breed. Genetics Selection Evolution 25, 177189.10.1186/1297-9686-25-2-177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T, Domingue, JD, Paschal, JC, Franke, DE, Bidner, TD and Whipple, G (2007) Genetic parameters for growth and carcass traits of Brahman steers. Journal of Animal Science 85, 13771384.10.2527/jas.2006-653CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP and van der Linde, A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion and rejoinder). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 64, 583639.10.1111/1467-9868.00353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, DF, Morris, CA, Baker, RL and Johnson, DL (1993) Maternal effects for growth traits in beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 34, 5770.10.1016/0301-6226(93)90035-GCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasike, CB, Ilatsia, ED, Ojango, JMK and Kahi, AK (2006) Genetic parameters for weaning weight of Kenyan Boran cattle accounting for direct-maternal genetic covariances. South African Journal of Animal Science 36, 275281. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC94494Google Scholar
Wasike, CB, Indetie, D, Ojango, JMK and Kahi, AK (2009) Direct and maternal (co) variance components and genetic parameters for growth and reproductive traits in the Boran cattle in Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 741748.10.1007/s11250-008-9246-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willham, RL (1972) The role of maternal effects in animal breeding: III. Biometrical aspects of maternal effects in animals. Journal of Animal Science 35, 12881293.10.2527/jas1972.3561288xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of data structure for body weights (kg) of Jersey crossbred cattle

Figure 1

Table 2. Characteristics of the pedigree structure of the data used for the study

Figure 2

Table 3. Least-squares means ± standard errors of different body weights (in kg) in Jersey crossbred cattle

Figure 3

Table 4. Estimates of (co)variance components (kg2) and genetic parameters for growth traits along with their posterior standard deviation in Jersey crossbred cattle