Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T08:55:20.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological reasons for heterosis in growth of Bos indicus × Bos taurus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. E. Frisch
J. E. Frisch
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Animal Science, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, Box 5545, Rockhampton Mail Centre, 4702 Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

By comparing growth rates of Brahman (B), Hereford × Shorthorn (HS), their reciprocal F1, hybrid (F1BX), their Fn hybrid (FnBX) and an F1 Charolais × Brahman hybrid (Fl CH x B) in environments that differed in their levels of stresses that affected growth, it was shown that heterosis for growth realized in any environment arose because of heterosis in its underlying determinants, namely growth potential and resistance to environmental stresses. Growth potential of the F1 BX was similar to that of the better parent (HS) whilst resistance to environmental stresses was similar to or approached that of the more resistant parent (B). This combination of high growth potential and high resistance to environmental stresses enabled the F1 BX to outgain both parents at all levels of environmental stress above zero. However, some or all of the heterosis in both growth potential and resistance to environmental stresses was lost in the Fn BX. Thus, although previous selection for increased live-weight gain should have favoured the Fn BX, they realized lower live-weight gains than the Fl BX in all environments and lower live-weight gains than the parental breeds in all but intermediate environments.

Because the breeds differed in both determinants of growth, the magnitude of estimates of heterosis for realized growth was dependent on the environment in which it was measured. A figure depicting this interaction was constructed.

Comparative estimates were also made of the rate of approach to sexual maturity of bulls of each breed. The F1 BX had similar values to the better parent (HS) for both scrotal circumference and plasma testosterone concentrations. However, the Fn BX had values that were intermediate to those of the parental breeds.

Generally, gains of the -F, CH × B exceeded those of all other breeds in all environments but their rate of approach to sexual maturity was slower than that of the F1 BX.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 109 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 213 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barlow, R. (1981). Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 715–737.Google Scholar
Bindon, B. M., Hewetson, R. W. & Post, T. B. (1976). Plasma LH und testosterone in Zebu crossbred bulls after exposure to an oestrus cow and injection of synthetic GnRH. Theriogenology 5, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, L. V. (1970). Experimental results on cross-breeding cattle for beef production. Journal of Animal Science 30, 694–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1961). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1973). Comparative drought resistance of Bos indicus and Bos taurus crossbred herds in central Queensland. IT. Relative mortality rates, calf birth weights, and weights and weight changes of breeding cows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 13, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1975). The relative incidence and effect of bovine infectious keratoconjunctivitis in Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. Animal Production 21, 265–274.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. (1976). A model of reasons for breed differences in growth of cattle in the tropics. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 11, 85–88.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1977). Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate and efficiency of feed utilization in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Animal Production 25, 343–358.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. & Vercoe, J. E. (1984). An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffino, B. & Zsiros, E. (1971). Heterosis associated with genotype-environment interactions. Genetics 68, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laster, D. B., Smith, G. M. & Gregory, K. E. (1976). Characterization of biological types of cattle. IV. Post-weaning growth and puberty of heifers. Journal of Animal Science 43, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L. (1966). Hybrid vigour in beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 34, 453–473.Google Scholar
Obst, J. M. & Morgan, J. H. L. (1985). Breed evaluation of large ruminants in Southern Australia. ACIAR Proceedings No. 5, pp. 113–119.Google Scholar
Orozco, F. (1976). Heterosis and genotype-environment interaction: theoretical and experimental aspects. Bulletin Technique du Département de Génétique Animate No. 24, pp. 43–52. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.Google Scholar
Peacock, F. M., Kooer, M. & Olson, T. A. (1986). Heterosis levels from matings utilizing crossbred sires. Journal of Animal Science 62, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, T. B. & Bindon, B. M. (1983). Plasma luteinizing hormone and testosterone concentrations in different breeds of young beef bulls in the tropics. Australian Journal of Biological Science 36, 545–549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R. H. S. & O'Sullivan, P. J. (1950). Methods for egg counts and larval cultures for strongyles infecting the gastrointestinal tracts of cattle. Australian Journal of Agrictdtural Research 1, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1973). Sources of variation in the fertility of a herd of Zebu, British and Zebu x British cattle in northern Australia. Journal Agricultural Science, Gam-bridge 81, 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1977). Selection for adaptation before crossbreeding for tropical beef production. Third Inter-national Congress of the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Researches in Asia and Oceania (SABRAO), Canberra, February 1977. Animal Breeding Papers 9–5, 9–9.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. K. (1981). Crossbreeding and heterosis. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 131–144.Google Scholar
Syrstad, O. (1985). Relative merits of various Bos taurus dairy breeds for crossbreeding with Bos indicus cattle. Livestock Production Science 13, 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. (1975). Breeding of beef cattle for tropical Australia. Australian Meat Research Committee Review 24, 1–30.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Schleoer, A. V. (1960). The significance of coat type in cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 645–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Taylor, St. C. (1983). Dynamic factors in models of energy utilization with particular reference to maintenance requirement of cattle. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42, 135–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercoe, J. E. (1970). The fasting metabolism of Brahman, Africander and Hereford x Shorthorn cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed