INDIAN JOURNAL OF PURE & APPLIED BIOSCIENCES

ISSN (E) : 2582 – 2845

  • No. 772, Basant Vihar, Kota

    Rajasthan-324009 India

  • Call Us On

    +91 9784677044

Archives

Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences (IJPAB)
Year : 2021, Volume : 9, Issue : 1
First page : (411) Last page : (415)
Article doi: : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8519

Genetic Gain in Productive Traits and Nonproductive Traits through Selection Indices in HF×Gir Halfbreds

Dipali Sarwade1*, D. K. Deokar2 and S. D. Mandakmale3
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Science,
Post Graduate Institute, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, India
*Corresponding Author E-mail: dipalisarwade26@gmail.com
Received: 23.11.2020 | Revised: 29.12.2020 | Accepted: 7.01.2021 

 ABSTRACT

The present investigation entitled, “Genetic gain in productive and non productive traits through selection indices in HF xGir halfbreds” undertaken to asses the magnitude of different factors along with generations affecting the reproductive and productive traits. The data pertaining to HF x Gir halfbreds maintained from year 1972 to 2016 at RCDP on cattle, M.P.K.V., Rahuri were used for present investigation.
In HF x Gir halfbred cows the heritability of AFC, SP, PMY, LMY, LL, DP< CI, MY/CI, MY/LL was 0.521 ± 0.517, 0.132 ± 0.104, 0.432 ± 0.433, 0.259 ± 0.227, 0.330 ± 0.031, 0.430 ± 0.430, 0.087 ± 0.066, 0.077 ± 0.060 and 0.056 ± 0.061, respectively.
Out of 28 selection indices constructed for HF x Gir halfbreds, index I24to I28 from four traits combination were found to be relatively efficient indices and rated as the most useful indices for their high reliability and expected genetic gain.

Keywords: Economics, Animals, Genetic, Halfbreds

Full Text : PDF; Journal doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782

Cite this article: Sarwade, D., Deokar, D. K., & Mandakmale, S. D. (2021). Genetic Gain in Productive Traits and Nonproductive Traits through Selection Indices in HF×Gir Halfbreds, Ind. J. Pure App. Biosci. 9(1), 411-415. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8519

INTRODUCTION

The economics of dairy industry is based on productivity of animals which is governed by several productive traits. The dairy animals are kept for milk production and their selection is done for their breeding value (genetic worth). The aim of the present day livestock breeder is to raise the animals on commercial line based on the principle of maximum gain from minimum input. It means that the animals which will bring maximum economic returns are kept while the rest unwanted low profitable stock culled at an earliest to reduce pressure on space and resources and also to increase efficiency of management. For proper selection and culling, a kind of yard stick is needed to discriminate the animals likely to bring maximum economic returns from those less profitable. To develop this kind of discriminating yard stick, all economically important traits are taken into account and combined according to their relative economic weights into a net economic score for each animal.

The relative weight of a trait depends upon its heritability, relative economic value and association with other traits. The animals which rank best on this scale are retained and other culled for maximum returns from a livestock enterprises.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of HF x Gir halfbreds maintained at Research Cum Development Project on Cattle, M.P.K.V., Rahuri for a period of 44 years (1972 to 2016). The data were classified according to genetic groups, period of birth/ calving and season of birth/calving. The data collected according to period of birth classified into 6 groups as P1(1972-1978), P2(1979-1985), P3(1986-1992), P4(1993-1999), P5(2000-2006), P6(2006 and above). Period of calving P1(1974-1980), P2(1981-1987, P3(1988-1994), P4(1995-2001), P5(2002-2008), P6(2008 and above) Viz., 5 order of lactation viz. L1  lactation order 1, L2 lactation order 2, L3 lactation order 3, L4 lactation order 4, lactation order 5; Season of birth coded as Rainy (June – September) coded S1, Winter (October – January) S2, Summer (February – May) S3  Peak milk yield group (kg) as Y1<12.00kg, Y212-14kg, Y3>14kg.


Model – I
The least squares means of age at first calving estimated by considering period of birth and season of birth effects.
The following model used for estimation,
Yijk = µ ± Pi ± Sj ± eijk
Model – II
The least squares means of service period, calving interval, lactation milk yield, lactation length, dry period, milk yield per day of calving interval and milk yield per day of lactation length were estimated by considering period of calving, season of calving, lactation order and peak milk yield effects.
The following model used for estimation,
Yijklm = µ ± Ai ± Bj ± Ck ± Dl ± eijklm
Model – III
Least squares analysis of some reproduction and production traits as affected by generation carried out by using following statistical model.
Yij = µ ± Gi ± eij
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

Construction of selection indices
Selection indices constructed by using different traits in different combinations according to Cunningham (1969).
Model for estimation of relative efficiency of index

The relative efficiency of the index Ii was computed as per Hogsett and Nordskog (1958).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

An index method is more efficient for selection of an animal than tandem method or independent culling method, because it results in more genetic improvement for the time and efforts put in it’s use. The rate of genetic gain besides other factors depend upon the selection intensity.
Selection indices were constructed by incorporating age at first calving (AFC), service period (SP), calving interval (CI), lactation length (LL), dry period (DP), lactation milk yield (LMY) and milk yield per day of calving interval (MY/CI) and milk yield per day of lactation length (MY/LL). Total 150 selection indices were constructed in all possible combinations of four traits. However, out of them only 28 have given precise estimates and are presented in Table 1.
Partial regression coefficient of different traits (b values) and measure of the accuracy (rIH value) of different indices have been presented in Table 1 The partial regression coefficients of different traits (b values) in an index are a function of their relative economic values, heritability and correlations with other traits.
Efficiency of selection indices
The chief measure of utility of an index is it’s correlation with aggregate breeding value, rIH. The genetic response to selection is proportional to this correlation. Out of 28 selection indices constructed for HF x Gir halfbreds, index I24 to I28 four traits combination were found to be relatively efficient indices and rated as most useful indices for high reliability and expected genetic gain.
On incorporating the relative measures of accuracy out of all the indices for HF x Gir halfbreds, index I24 [(-9.907) (CI) + (-0.5409) (LL) + (-15.287) (DP) + (89.66) (PMY)] was observed to be the most accurate (rIH = 0.89).
The index I24 with four traits combination [(-9.907) (CI) + (-0.5409) (LL) + (-15.287) (DP) + (89.66) (PMY)] was found to be the most useful index. Using this index the response in each trait per generation was expected to be -1.76 days in calving interval (CI), 70.29 days in lactation length (LL), -84.4 days in dry period and 0.049 kg in peak milk yield (PMY).
The index I24 with four traits combination [(-9.907) (CI) + (-0.5409) (LL) + (-15.287) (DP) + (89.66) (PMY)] was found to be the most useful index. Using this index the response in each trait per generation was expected to be -1.76 days in calving interval (CI), 70.29 days in lactation length (LL), -84.4 days in dry period and 0.049 kg in peak milk yield (PMY).

Out of 28 selection indices constructed for HF x Gir halfbreds, index I24to I28 from four traits combination were found to be relatively efficient indices and rated as the most useful indices for their high reliability and expected genetic gain.

Table 1: Selection indices for HF x Gir halfbreds (four traits combination)


Index

Particulars

Traits

 

AFC

CI

SP

LMY

I1

B Value

-0.422

0.01319

0.1959

1.071

rIH=0.6892
∆ H=193.59

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

-12.35

1

D gi

-168.63

-19.27

55.018

-7.2938

 

 

AFC

PMY

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I2

B Value

-3.0304

-8.9906

5.6594

-0.9930

 rIH=0.5284
∆H=539.63

R.E.V.

-10.88

1

-12.35

-15.52

D gi

-296.8

-0.445

-0.375

-0.013

 

 

AFC

CI

SP

DP

 

I3

B Value

-3.5998

1.260

-0.075

-1.545

rIH=0.5808
∆ H=664.96

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

-12.35

-12.02

D gi

-294.99

-1.921

-3.326

-0.436

 

 

AFC

CI

SP

PMY

 

I4

B Value

-3.4088

0.410

-0.2465

-2.034

rIH = 0.5778
∆H = 609.68

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

-12.35

-11.05

D gi

-294.99

-1.921

-3.326

-0.436

 

 

AFC

SP

LMY

MY/LL

 

I5

B Value

-3.1609

-0.6345

0.08289

-22.014

rIH = 0.5229
∆H = 569.77

R.E.V.

-10.88

-12.35

12.00

10.38

D gi

-295.21

-3.3135

-9.5747

-0.0354

 

 

AFC

SP

LL

MY/LL

 

I6

B Value

-3.1825

-0.6086

0.59789

3.4898

rIH = 0.5172
∆H = 572.48

R.E.V.

-10.88

-12.35

14.49

10.98

D gi

-295.61

-3.1993

-0.329

-0.0342

 

 

AFC

SP

PMY

MY/LL

 

I7

B Value

-3.2549

-0.2445

-8.9768

6.24738

rIH = 0.5365
∆H = 580.48

R.E.V.

-10.88

-12.35

-11.05

10.98

D gi

-298.4

-3.1644

0.438

0.0369

 

Index

Particulars

Traits

 

 

 

AFC

SP

PMY

MY/CI

 

I8

B Value

-3.1337

-0.231

-0.2911

1.4512

rIH = 0.5369
∆H = 580.48

R.E.V.

-10.88

-12.35

-11.05

10.96

D gi

-298.1

-3.2013

0.054

0.0022

 

 

AFC

CI

LMY

LL

 

I9

B Value

-3.0448

-0.2825

0.02128

0.4052

rIH = 0.50738
∆H = 544.62

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

12.00

14.49

D gi

-293.67

-1.7556

-121.96

-0.532

 

 

AFC

CI

LMY

PMY

 

I10

B Value

-3.1081

-0.044

0.016

0.0815

rIH = 0.53492
∆H = 553.303

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

12.00

-11.05

D gi

-295.89

-1.8284

-103.96

-0.0399

 

 

AFC

CI

LMY

MY/LL

 

I11

B Value

-3.1082

-0.0465

0.01703

-0.5248

rIH = 0.53521
∆H = 553.36

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

12.00

10.98

D gi

-285.80

-1.827

-101.61

-0.0344

 

 

AFC

CI

LMY

MY/CI

 

I12

B Value

-3.1337

-1.7536

0.2665

-107.97

rIH = 0.5437
∆H = 562.178

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

12.00

10.96

D gi

-290.43

-2.7358

-123.01

0.00684

 

 

AFC

CI

LL

PMY

 

I13

B Value

-3.1214

-0.0727

0.16374

-8.5277

rIH = 0.5292
∆H = 557.19

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

14.49

12.00

D gi

-296.10

-1.7623

-0.6563

-0.465

 

 

AFC

CI

PMY

MY/LL

 

I14

B Value

-3.1912

0.0715

-3.2407

6.1567

rIH = 0.5468
∆H = 567.75

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

-11.05

10.98

D gi

-276.03

-1.8606

-0.41

-0.0353

 

Index

Particulars

Traits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFC

CI

PMY

MY/CI

 

I15

B Value

-3.1912

0.0715

-1.8127

-6.3585

rIH = 0.5476
∆H = 525.82

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

-11.05

10.96

D gi

                      -277.75                  

-14.107

-0.434

-0.0043

 

 

AFC

CI

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I16

B Value

-3.2249

-0.3718

50.6335

-55.369

rIH = 0.5534
∆H = 554.033

R.E.V.

-10.88

-15.52

10.98

10.96

D gi

-293.23

-2.298

-0.0335

-0.00043

 

 

AFC

LMY

LL

DP

 

I17

B Value

-3.0843

0.0445

0.04733

-1.5698

rIH = 0.4767
∆H = 588.32

R.E.V.

-10.88

12.00

14.49

-12.02

D gi

-277.78

324.45

0.00964

-5.288

 

 

AFC

LMY

LL

MY/CI

 

I18

B Value

-2.8796

-0.0416

0.3945

24.714

rIH = 0.5041
∆H = 516.71

R.E.V.

-10.88

12.00

14.49

10.96

D gi

-234.88

-320.36

-0.5605

-0.0027

 

 

AFC

LMY

DP

MY/CI

 

I19

B Value

-3.1392

0.11971

-1.8111

-46.234

rIH = 0.5024
∆H = 593.90

R.E.V.

-10.88

12.00

-12.02

10.96

D gi

-281.09

312.22

-5.5636

0.03933

 

 

AFC

LMY

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I20

B Value

-2.9408

-0.0145

-7.4477

18.946

rIH = 0.5245
∆H = 525.81

R.E.V.

-10.88

12.00

10.98

10.96

D gi

-279.578

-431.81

-0.0335

-0.0335

 

Index

Particulars

Traits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFC

LL

PMY

MY/CI

 

I21

B Value

-2.9699

-0.1611

-15.702

10.7546

rIH = 0.5215
∆H = 530.89

R.E.V.

-10.88

14.49

-11.05

10.96

D gi

-233.69

-0.6305

-0.0485

-0.0046

 

 

AFC

PMY

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I22

B Value

-3.0304

-8.9906

56.594

-0.9931

rIH = 0.5284
∆H = 539.63

R.E.V.

10.88

-11.05

10.98

10.96

D gi

-233.68

-0.0445

-0.0375

0.0013

 

 

AFC

DP

PMY

MY/LL

 

I23

B Value

-3.2398

-0.8399

-2.8814

1.0691

rIH = 0.5193
∆H = 530.39

R.E.V.

-10.88

-12.02

-11.05

10.98

D gi

-244.55

-0.5723

-0.0335

-0.0049

 

 

CI

LL

DP

PMY

 

I24

B Value

9.90784

-0.5409

-15.287

89.667

rIH = 0.8901
∆H = 1149.46

R.E.V.

-15.52

14.49

-12.02

-11.05

D gi

-1.7614

70.2902

-84.481

0.04922

 

 

CI

LL

PMY

MY/LL

 

I25

B Value

0.05506

0.47866

1.1793

-0.2477

rIH = 0.82678
∆H = 44.179

R.E.V.

-15.52

14.49

-11.05

10.98

D gi

-1.401

1.5686

-0.0269

-0.0051

 

 

CI

LL

PMY

MY/CI

 

I26

B Value

-0.0866

0.67155

1.89038

-8.8312

rIH = 0.80063
∆H = 51.216

R.E.V.

-15.52

14.49

-11.05

10.96

D gi

-59.908

1.3825

-0.0335

0.055372

 

Index

Particulars

Traits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CI

LL

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I27

B Value

-1.3031

2.1377

72.6337

-94.184

rIH = 0.98694
∆H = 90.831

R.E.V.

-15.52

14.49

10.98

10.96

D gi

-60.729

-37.94

-0.0086

0.05544

 

 

CI

DP

MY/LL

MY/CI

 

I28

B Value

0.82212

-1.9008

72.3355

-80.755

rIH = 0.90083
∆H = 163.388

R.E.V.

-15.52

-12.02

10.98

10.96

D gi

-4.7436

-119.55

0.1139

0.1693

Abbreviations:      AFC= Age at first calving,                                      SP= service period,      LL= lactation length,
DP= dry period,                                                                                      LMY= lactation milk yield
CI= calving interval                                                                MY/CI= Milk yield per day of calving interval.
R.E.V. = Relative economic weights,      ∆ gi= Gain in each trait, ∆H= Overall genetic gain
rIH= Correlation between genetic worth and indeX

REFERENCES

Banerjee, Sandip & Banerjee, S. (2002). Correlation between some reproduction and production traits in Holstein Friesian x Sahiwal crossbred cows. Indian Vet. J. 79(2), 927-930.
Cunningham, E. P. (1969). Animal Breeding Theory. Landbruck Sokbhandelen Universities, Forlaget Yollabekk, 0510.
Deokar, D. K., & Ulmek, B. R. (2001). Studies on lactation length in Jersey cattle. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 26(1), 104-106.
Hazel, L. N., & Lush, J. L. (1942). The efficiency of three methods of selection. J. Heridity. 33, 393-399.
Hogsett, M. L., & Nordskog, A. W. (1958). Poult. Sci., 37, 1404-1419.
Krammer, C. Y. (1957). Extension of multiple range test to group related adjusted mean-Biometrics 13, 20.
Smith, C. (1983). Effect of changes in economic weights on the efficiency of index selection. J. Anim. Sci., 56, 1057-1064.
Swiger, L. A., Harvey, W. R., Everson, D. O., & Gegory, K. E. (1964). The variance of interclass correlation involving groups with one observation. Biometrics. 20, 818-826.

 




Photo

Photo