Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T08:36:34.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance of Zebu compared with Charolais × Zebu females in a humid tropical environment†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. E. Madalena  and
A. Hinojosa C.
F. E. Madalena
Affiliation:
Colégio Superior de Agricultura Tropical, H. Cárdenas, Tabasco, México
A. Hinojosa C.
Affiliation:
Colégio Superior de Agricultura Tropical, H. Cárdenas, Tabasco, México
Get access

Summary

Components of reproductive efficiency of Zebu-type and Charolais × Zebu-type (1/2, 3/4 and 7/8) females were compared. Zebus had longer mean intervals from calving to first service (57·8 days) and from calving to conception (46·0 days). Least squares means for both traits were respectively 129·8 and 145·1 days. Correspondingly, in the Charolais cross group 26·4% more cows were detected in oestrus within 180 days of calving, and 31·4% more conceived in the same period. Least squares means for these traits were respectively 80·7 and 50·5%.

No significant differences were found between the two breeding types either in number of services per conception or in the percentage conceiving by artificial insemination (of those showing oestrus) both for lactating and dry females. A higher percentage of oestrus cycles of normal duration was found in Charolais cross (72·9 %) than in Zebus (63·1%). Gestation lengths of Zebus (Indu-Brasil sires) and Charolais cross (Charolais and Simmental sires) were respectively 288·8 and 283·1 days.

The main difference between breed types was the longer lactation anoestrus shown by Zebus. These were very sensitive to seasonal effects, showing a cyclical time trend with peaks of shorter anoestrous periods for cows calving in January–February–March, and longer ones for cows calving in July–August–September. Related traits followed parallel cycles. Charolais cross cows showed less variation than Zebus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , August 1976 , pp. 55 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

Cartwright, T. C. 1973. Comparison of Fi cows with purebreds and other crosses. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Series 2 (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C.), pp. 49–63. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Crockett, J. R. 1973a. Early breeding trials at the Everglades Station in Florida. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Series 2 (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C. pp. 38–42. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Crockett, J. R. 1973b. Angus, Brahman, Hereford and their crosses in the Everglades. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Series 2 (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C.), pp. 87–90. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V. 1970. Experimental results on crossbreeding cattle for beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 694–705.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1974. Effects of heterosis on reproduction in Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 38: 711–727.Google Scholar
Cuq, P. 1973. [Anatomical and functional basis of reproduction in the Zebu (Bos indicus).] Revue Èiev. Mèd. vèt. Pays trop. 26: 21a–48a.Google Scholar
De alba, J. 1960. [Milking with calf, and reproductive efficiency in the cow.] Turrialba 10: 64–67.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1968. Some aspects of fertility in purebred and crossbred dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 10: 465–471.Google Scholar
Lerner, I. M. 1954. Genetic Homeostasis. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Richardson, G. V., MacKey, B. E. and Mcdaniel, B. T. 1970. Interbreed matings in dairy cattle. V. Reproductive performance. J. Dairy Sci. 53: 757–763.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1966. Hybrid vigour in beef cattle. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 34: 453–473.Google Scholar
Peacock, F. M., Koger, M., Kirk, W. G., Hodges, E. M. and Warnick, A. C. 1973. Comparative performance of various beef breeds and crosses in Florida. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Series 2 (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C.) pp. 43–47. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Plasse, D., Warnick, A. C. and Koger, M. 1970. Reproductive behaviour of Bos indicus females in a subtropical environment. IV. Length of estrous cycle duration of estrus, time of ovulation, fertilization and embryo survival in grade Brahman heifers. J. Anitn. Sci. 30: 63–72.Google Scholar
Reynolds, W. L. 1973. Reproduction of Brahman, Angus, Africander and their crosses at Jeanerette, Louisiana. In Crossbreeding Beef Cattle. Series 2, (ed. Koger, M., Cunha, T. J. and Warnick, A. C.), pp. 135–142. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Schilling, P. E. and England, N. C. 1968. Some factors affecting reproduction in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 1363–1367.Google Scholar
Searle, S. R. 1971. Linear Models. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Turner, J. W., Farthing, B. R. and Robertson, G. L. 1968. Heterosis in reproductive performance of beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 336–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vianna, A. T., Santiago, M. and Gomes, F. P. 1962. [The formation of Canchin cattle by crossing Charolais and Zebu.] Estud. tèc. Serv. Inform, agric. Minist. Agric, No. 19.Google Scholar
Warwick, E. J. 1968. Crossbreeding and line crossing beef cattle experimental results. Wld. Rev. Anim. Prod. IV: 19/20, 37–45.Google Scholar
Willham, R. L. 1973. Reproductive performance in beef-dairy crossbreeding. Rep. Iowa agric. Exp. Stn, AS-390.Google Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Wilson, A. 1974a. Comparative reproductive performance of Brahman and Santa Gertrudis cattle in a hot humid environment. 1. Fertility and descriptive statistics. Anim. Prod. 18: 35–42.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. and Willis, M. B. 19746. Comparative reproductive performance of Brahman and Santa Gertrudis cattle in a hot humid environment. 2. Factors affecting calving interval. Anim. Prod. 18: 43–48.Google Scholar