Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T14:59:56.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Milk production in the Latin-American Milking Criollo and its crosses with the Jersey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. de Alba
Affiliation:
Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenaza, Turrialba, Costa Rica
B. W. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access

Abstract

An analysis was conducted on milk production data collected from 1954 to 1981 at Turrialba, Costa Rica. The local conditions are humid and tropical without a sharply defined dry season. The data included purebred Central American Milking Criollos, Jerseys, their reciprocal F, crosses and backcrosses. Two data sets were created: one with minimum restrictions intended to include production data from all calvings, and another data set intended to include only lactations with normal let-down without the presence of the calf. Data were analysed by maximum likelihood according to a model that included the fixed effects of year of calving, parity of lactation, breed or cross and the regression on year of birth of the sire's first daughter and random effects of sire, cow and error. Breed or cross differences were significant for milk yield, fat-corrected milk (FCM) yield and lactation length but were not significant for fat concentration.

F1 crosses were superior to both parental breeds for milk and FCM yields for both data sets; there were no significant reciprocal effects. The ¾ Criollo backcross had significantly lower milk and FCM yields and shorter lactations than did the F1 or ¾ Jersey. These results suggest that breeding programmes for this type of environment should backcross F1's to Jersey sires and use criss-crossing from then on. The proportion of heterosis for milk, FCM, butterfat concentration and lactation length was 0·26, 0·28 0·02 and 0·15 for minimum-restriction lactations and 0·21, 0·22, 0·01 and 0·09 for normal lactations. Heritabilities for milk, FCM, fat concentration and length of lactation were 0·44, 0·42, 0·28 and 0·41 for minimum restriction lactations and 0·28, 0·27, 0·35 and 0·08 for normal lactations. The relatively higher values for minimum-restriction records suggest a strong genetic effect on ease or difficulty of milk let-down.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

REFERENCES

Alba, J. De and Carerra, C. 1958. [The selection of the Dairy Criollo of the tropics.] Commun. Turrialba No. 61.Google Scholar
Alba, J. De, and Kennedy, B. 1984. Improving the genetic base for milk production in the Humid Tropic. lnteramerican Dairy Congress 84, Miami.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1960. Genetical aspects of maximum rate of flow during milking. J. Dairy Res. 27: 361371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food And Agriculture Organization. 1983. Production Yearbook No. 36. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Magofke, J. C., Alba, J. de, and Munoz, C. H. 1966. [A progress report on the genetic improvement of Criollo dairy cattle in Turrialba.] Mems Asoc. lat.-am. Prod. anim. 1: 77103.Google Scholar
Mauala, K. and Hanna, M. 1974. Reliable phenotypic and genetic parameters in dairy cattle. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. I, pp. 541563.Google Scholar
Muñoz, H. and Martin, T. G. 1969. [Pre- and postweaning growth in Santa Gertrudis, Brahman and Criollo cattle and their reciprocal crosses.] Mems Asoc. lat.-am. Prod. anim. 4: 727.Google Scholar
Turton, J. D. 1981. Crossbreeding of dairy cattle — a selective review. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 49: 293300.Google Scholar
Vaccaro, L. P. De., 1973. Some aspects of the performance of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle in the tropics. Part 1. Reproductive efficiency in females. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 41: 571591.Google Scholar