Milk Production Performances of Crossbreed Dairy Cattle in Ethiopia: A  Short Communication

Nibo Beneberu

doi:10.35248/2593- 9173.23.14.154

Short Communication - (2023)Volume 14, Issue 3

Milk Production Performances of Crossbreed Dairy Cattle in Ethiopia: A Short Communication

^*Correspondence: Nibo Beneberu, Department of Agricultural Research, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta, Ethiopia, Email:

Author info »

Abstract

Crossbreeding had been initiated and put into practice in various parts of Ethiopia for a very long time to improve milk yield performance. This study was conducted for generating compiled information on milk production Daily Milk Yield (DMY), Lactation Length (LL) and Lactation Milk Yield of cross breed dairy cattle in Ethiopia. The results of milk production performances in Ethiopia varied greatly from one genotype to another. The on-station lactation milk yield, lactation length and daily milk yield were ranged from 1293.01 ± 23.70 to 2957.46 ± 72.98 liters, 298.68 ± 5.17 to 374.05 ± 7.24 days, 4.18 ± 5 to 8.70 ± 0.17 liters, respectively, whereas the on-farm review results were ranged from 631.69 ± 222.98 to 2705.43 liters, 241.65 ± 26.22 to 310.1 ± 41.83 days and 7.30 ± 0.16 to 9.91 liters, respectively. Among the genotypes, the 50% F1 and 75% Holstein Friesian, first generations were considered suitable for milk production parameters. The on-station development of 50% F2, F3 and 75% second generations showed low milk production. Regardless of blood level and genotype difference, the performance of on-farm crossbred cows was almost similar to on-station experimental cows. Crossbred cows were affected by non-genetic factors like year, season, and parity, depending on the breed and study location. In general, crossbred cows have good milk yield performances compared to indigenous (local) breeds. However, crossbred animals could not exploit their maximum potentials because animals are subjected to different environmental effects.

Keywords

Crossbreed; Genotype; Milk performance

Description

Ethiopia is one of the developing countries in Africa known with a huge livestock population. The estimated total cattle population for the country is about 70 million constituting of male (44%) and female (56%). Out of the total cattle population in the country, the proportion of indigenous breeds are 97.4% and the remaining hybrid and exotic breeds are about 2.3% and 0.31%, respectively [1]. But, dairy industry is not developed as that of east African countries for example Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda [2].

The overall productivity and adaptive efficiency of cattle depends largely on their milk production performance in a given environment. Reproduction is an indicator of milk production efficiency and the rate of genetic progress in both selection and crossbreeding programs particularly in dairy production systems.

The milk production traits are crucial factors, contributing for the profitability of dairy production [3]. The common determinant traits for milk production performance of breeding animal are Daily Milk Yield (DMY), Lactation Length (LL) and Lactation Milk Yield (LMY) of breeding animal.

However, the ultimate goal in dairy production is to undertake economically efficient milk production, which is influenced by the reproductive efficiency of the cows. In the long-term crossbreeding program, different genotypes were produced in the country. The present review was focused on reviewing and generating compiled information on milk yield traits of crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia.

Milk production traits

The milk production performance of dairy cattle is usually measured by determining the average DMY, LL, LMY or per year, lactation persistency, and milk composition [4,5]. Milk production is affected by genetic and environmental factors. Among the environmental factors, the quantity and quality of available feed resources are the major ones. Profitability of a dairy enterprise depends on obtaining as high level of milk production as possible with available feeds, relative to the maintenance cost of the animals. According [6] said that poor management of dairy cattle was the most probable factors affected the standard expected of milk production performance of cross breed cattle. Efficient heat detection and timely insemination, better health management, genetic improvement of crossbreeding, supplementing of good quality feed resources are required for optimal milk production performance.

Lactation milk yield

Most genetic improvement programs of developing countries have focused on improving production performance of dairy cattle particularly; increasing production of milk yield is the ultimate goal of dairy sectors (Table 1).

SL. No	Breed/ Genotype	LMY (L)	Study sites	Source
1	50% F1 Friesian	2203.23 ± 38.13	on station	[7]
2	50% F2 Friesian	1697.09 ± 71.82	on station	[7]
3	50% F3 Friesian	1522.67 ± 90.07	on station	[7]
4	50% HF	2019 ± 26	on station	[8]
5	50% HF x Local	631.69 ± 222.98	on farm	[9]
6	50% HF x Barca	2316 ± 98	on station	[10]
7	50%F1 Friesian	2369.95 ± 26.04	on station	[11]
8	50%F2 Friesian	1681.24 ± 47.66	on station	[11]
9	50%F3 Friesian	1542.38 ± 59.57	on station	[11]
10	50%HF x Borena	2088 ± 118	on station	[10]
11	50%HF x Borena	2031 ± 20.9	on station	[12]
12	50%HF x Borena (F1)	2355 ± 71	on station	[13]
13	50%HF x Borena (F2)	1928 ± 108	on station	[13]
14	50%HF x Horro	1836 ± 31.6	on station	[12]
15	50%Jersey x Borena	1788 ± 26.5	on station	[12]
16	50%Jersey x Borena (F1)	2092 ± 75	on station	[13]
17	50%Jersey x Borena (F2)	1613 ± 107	on station	[13]
18	50%Jersey x Horro	1621 ± 33.1	on station	[12]
19	75% F1 Friesian	2957.46 ± 72.98	on station	[7]
20	75% F2 Friesian	2027.16 ± 152.15	on station	[7]
21	75% Friesian	2480.4 ± 7	on station	[14]
22	75% HF	2182 ± 4	on station	[8]
23	75% HF x Local	762.71 ± 147.42	on farm	[9]
24	75% HF x Barca	2373 ± 105	on station	[10]
25	75% Jersey	1673.94 ± 4	on station	[14]
26	75%HF x Borena	2336 ± 96	on station	[10]
27	75%HF x Borena	2528 ± 141	on station	[13]
28	75%HF x Borena	2240 ± 35.9	on station	[12]
29	75%HF x Borena	2292.36 ± 102.55	on station	[11]
30	75%HF x Horro	2184 ± 72.8	on station	[12]
31	75%Jersey x Borena	1956 ± 133	on station	[13]
32	75%Jersey x Borena	1832 ± 56.0	on station	[12]
33	75%Jersey x Horro	1724 ± 73.9	on station	[12]
34	87.5% HF x Barca	2189 ± 183	on station	[10]
35	87.5%HF x Borena	1915 ± 163	on station	[10]
36	F1 Friesian	1908.06 ± 11	on station	[14]
37	F1 Jersey	1725.46 ± 7	on station	[14]
38	F2 Friesian	1622 ± 5	on station	[14]
39	F2 Jersey	1380 ± 5	on station	[14]
40	Friesian x Borena	1907.6 ± 15.1	on station	[15]
41	Holistian x Fogera	2705.43	on farm	[16]
42	Jersey x Borena	1684.1 ± 17.6	on station	[15]
43	Jersey x GH	2364.70 ± 85.06	on farm	[17]
44	Jersey x Horro	1293.01 ± 23.70	on station	[18]
45	Zebu x HF	2042.11	on farm	[19]

Note: LMY: Lactation milk yield; HF: Holstein friesian; F1: 1^st filial generation; F2: 2^nd filial generation; F3: 3^rd filial generation; Fg: 1^st generation for 75% crosses; Sg: 2^nd generation for 75% crosses.

Table 1: Lactation milk yield of crossbred dairy cows with different genetic group in Ethiopia.

Lactation length

Lactation length refers to the time of period from when a cow starts to secrete milk after parturition to the time of drying off. A lactation period of 305 days is recommended to take advantage of 60 days dry period (Table2).

SL. No	Breed/ Genotype	LL (days)	Study sites	Source
1	50% F1 Friesian	343.62 ± 3.56	on station	[7]
2	50% F2 Friesian	319.42 ± 6.68	on station	[7]
3	50% F3 Friesian	319.25 ± 8.37	on station	[7]
4	50% HF	337 ± 3	on station	[8]
5	50% HF x Local	310.91 ± 41.83	on farm	[9]
6	50% HF x Barca	326 ± 11	on station	[10]
7	50% F1 Friesian	332.54 ± 2.82	on station	[11]
8	50% F2 Friesian	298.68 ± 5.17	on station	[11]
9	50% F3 Friesian	299.90 ± 6.46	on station	[11]
10	50% HF x Borena	328 ± 13	on station	[10]
11	50% HF x Borena	337.2 ± 3.6	on station	[12]
12	50% HF x Borena (F1)	348 ± 6	on station	[13]
13	50% HF x Borena (F2)	308 ± 9	on station	[13]
14	50% HF x Horro	321.0 ± 5.5	on station	[12]
15	50% Jersey x Borena	315.3 ± 0.6	on station	[12]
16	50% Jersey x Borena (F1)	343 ± 6	on station	[13]
17	50% Jersey x Borena (F2)	304 ± 9	on station	[13]
18	50% Jersey x Horro	303.8 ± 5.8	on station	[12]
19	75% F1 Friesian	374.05 ± 7.24	on station	[7]
20	75% F2 Friesian	303.12 ± 15.73	on station	[7]
21	75% Friesian	356.43 ± 6	on station	[14]
22	75% HF	351 ± 6	on station	[8]
23	75% HF x Local	303.42 ± 46.25	on farm	[9]
24	75% HF x Barca	360 ± 12	on station	[10]
25	75% Jersey	341 ± 4	on station	[14]
26	75% HF x Borena	358 ±11	on station	[10]
27	75% HF x Borena	331 ± 12	on station	[13]
28	75% HF x Borena	343.2 ± 6.3	on station	[12]
29	75% HF x Borena	331.02 ± 11.12	on station	[11]
30	75% HF x Horro	360.7 ±12.7	on station	[12]
31	75% Jersey x Borena	337 ± 11	on station	[13]
32	75% Jersey x Borena	302.8 ± 9.8	on station	[12]
33	75% Jersey x Horro	329.0 ± 12.9	on station	[12]
34	87.5% HF x Barca	351 ± 22	on station	[10]
35	87.5% HF x Borena	341 ± 20	on station	[10]
36	Zebu x HF	241.65 ± 26.22	on farm	[19]
37	F1 Friesian	340.64 ± 10	on station	[14]
38	F1 Jersey	333.37 ± 7	on station	[14]
39	F2 Friesian	3 37 ± 5	on station	[14]
40	F2 Jersey	330 ± 5	on station	[14]
41	HF x Fogera	273	on farm	[16]
42	Jersey x GH	270	on farm	[17]
43	93.75% HF	328.3 ± 5.50	on station	[20]

Note: LL: Lactation length; HF: Holstein lriesian; F1: 1^st filial generation; F2: 2^nd filial generation; F3: 3^rd filial generation; Fg: 1^st generation for 75% crosses; Sg: 2^nd generation for 75% crosses.

Table 2: Lactation length of crossbred dairy cows with different genetic group in Ethiopia.

Daily milk yield

Systematic incline or decline in daily milk yield can be used as a tool for early warning for management decisions and predicting production capacity of cows (Table 3).

SL. No	Breed/ Genotype	DMY (L)	Study sites	Source
1	50% F1 Friesian	6.69 ± 0.08	on station	[7]
2	50% F2 Friesian	5.66 ± 0.16	on station	[7]
3	50% F3 Friesian	5.02 ± 0.19	on station	[7]
4	50% HF	6.0 ± 0.1	on station	[8]
5	50% HF x Local	7.34 ± 2.61	on farm	[9]
6	50% HF x Barca	7.21 ± 0.26	on station	[10]
7	50% F1 Friesian	7.14 ± 0.06	on station	[11]
8	50% F2 Friesian	5.70 ± 0.12	on station	[11]
9	50% F3 Friesian	5.05 ± 0.15	on station	[11]
10	50% HF x Borena	6.36 ± 0.30	on station	[10]
11	50% HF x Borena	6.4 ± 0.06	on station	[12]
12	50% HF x Borena (F1)	7.1 ± 0.17	on station	[13]
13	50% HF x Borena (F2)	5.4 ± 0.24	on station	[13]
14	50% HF x Horro	5.7 ± 0.10	on station	[12]
15	50% Jersey x Borena	5.6 ± 0.08	on station	[12]
16	50% Jersey x Borena (F1)	6.2 ± 0.17	on station	[13]
17	50% Jersey x Borena (F2)	4.5 + 0.24	on station	[13]
18	50% Jersey x Horro	4.9 ± 0.10	on station	[12]
19	75% F1 Friesian	8.70 ± 0.17	on station	[7]
20	75% F2 Friesian	6.72 ± 0.37	on station	[7]
21	75% Friesian	6.95 ± 6	on station	[14]
22	75% HF	6.3 ± 0.1	on station	[8]
23	75% HF x Local	8.78 ± 1.69	on farm	[9]
24	75% HF x Barca	7.15 ± 0.28	on station	[10]
25	75% Jersey	4.9 ± 4	on station	[14]
26	75% HF x Borena	6.92 ± 0.25	on station	[10]
27	75% HF x Borena	7.2 ± 0.32	on station	[13]
28	75% HF x Borena	7.0 ± 0.11	on station	[12]
29	75% HF x Borena	6.91 ± 0.25	on station	[11]
30	75% HF x Horro	6.8 ± 0.23	on station	[12]
31	75% Jersey x Borena	6.1 ± 0.31	on station	[13]
32	75% Jersey x Borena	5.7 ± 0.17	on station	[12]
33	75% Jersey x Horro	5.5 ± 0.23	on station	[12]
34	87.5% HF x Barca	6.28 ± 0.52	on station	[10]
35	87.5% HF x Borena	5.98 ± 0.50	on station	[10]
36	F1 Friesian	5.6 ± 8	on station	[14]
37	F1 Jersey	5.17 ± 7	on station	[14]
38	F2 Friesian	4.81 ± 5	on station	[14]
39	F2 Jersey	4.18 ± 5	on station	[14]
40	Friesian x Borena	5.88 ± 0.05	on station	[15]
41	HF x Fogera	9.91	on farm	[16]
42	Jersey x Borena	5.21 ± 0.05	on station	[15]
43	Jersey x GH	7. 30 ± 0.16	on farm	[17]
44	Zebu x HF	8.45 ± 1.23	on farm	[19]

Note: DMY: Daily milk yield; HF: Holstein friesian; F1: 1^st filial generation; F2: 2^nd filial generation; F3: 3^rd filial generation; Fg: 1^st generation for 75% crosses; Sg: 2^nd generation for 75% crosses.

Table 3: Daily milk yield of crossbred dairy cows with different genetic group in Ethiopia.

Conclusion

Many literature results in Ethiopia agreed, crossbred dairy cows produced better milk yield performances than indigenous breeds because of the advantage of heterosis. However, their milk yield performance had lower than pure exotic parents. Most crossbred dairy cows milk yield trait performances were influenced by year, season, parity and lactation numbers. In the long-term experiment on station condition, 50% F1 crossbred genotypes were relatively performed well and indexed in milk production traits. The second and third generations in all genotypes were poor in both milk yield performances due to heterosis reduction. The 75% of first generations were higher milk producers than all other genotypes. Therefore, 50% F1 and 75% first-generation crosses as dairy cows were the best options to the producers under the current dairy production conditions in Ethiopia, as extreme performance differences were not seen as an on-station and on farm evaluated crossbred dairy cows. Regarding milk yield performances, index selection should be applied by including all economic important milk yield traits.

References

Central Statistical Agency. Agricultural sample survey 2020/2021. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings)
Dinka H. Reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows under smallholder condition in Ethiopia. J Vet Med Animal Sci. 2013;1(5):101-103.
[Google Scholar]
Lobago F, Bekana M, Gustafsson H, Kindahl H. Longitudinal observation on reproductive and lactation performances of smallholder crossbred dairy cattle in Fitche, Oromia region, central Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2007;39(6):395-403.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Arbel R, Bigun Y, Ezra E, Sturman H, Hojman D. The effect of extended calving intervals in high lactating cows on milk production and profitability. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84(3):600-608.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Wondifraw Z, Thombre BM, Bainwad DV. Effect of non-genetic factors on milk production of Holstein Friesian× Deoni crossbred cows. Int J Livest Prod. 2013;4(7):106-112.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Genzebu D, Tamir B, Berhane G. Study of reproductive and production performance of crossbred dairy cattle under smallholders management system in Bisheftu and Akaki towns. J Reprod Infertil. 2016;7(2):41-46.
[Google Scholar]
Getahun K, Hundie D. Genetic and non-genetic parameter estimation for productive and reproductive performances of crossbred dairy cattle at Holetta research center.
[Google Scholar]
Haile A, Joshi BK, Ayalew W, Tegegne A, Singh A. Genetic evaluation of Ethiopian Boran cattle and their crosses with Holstein Friesian in central Ethiopia: milk production traits. Animal. 2009;3(4):486-493.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Muluye M. Milk production and reproductive performance of local and Crossbreed dairy cows in selected districts of West Gojam zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
[Google Scholar]
Tadesse M, Dessie T. Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2003;15(3):1-9.
[Google Scholar]
Birhanu T. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters in Holstein Friesian and Ethiopian Boran-crosses for milk production and reproduction traits at Holeta agricultural research center, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia).
[Google Scholar]
Gebreyohannes G, Koonawootrittriron S, Mauricio A. Elzo and Thanathip Suwanasopee. Variance components and genetic parameters for milk production and lactation pattern in an Ethiopian multi-bred dairy cattle population. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2013;26(9):1237-1246.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Sindros D, Neser FW, Schoeman SJ. Estimates of genetic parameters for Borena, Friesian and crosses of Friesian and Jersey with the Borena cattle in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia: milk production traits and cow weight. J Anim Breed Genet. 2004;121(3):163-75.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Effa K, Kumsa T, Gojjam Y. Review of the performance of crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia. 2006:191.
[Google Scholar]
Gebreyohannes G, Koonawootrittriron S, Elzo MA, Suwanasopee T. Genotype by environment interaction effect on lactation pattern and milk production traits in an Ethiopian dairy cattle population. J Agric Nat Resour. 2014;48(1):38-51.
[Google Scholar]
Sena T, Guesh F, Adugnaw A, Beletech H, Workalem D. Assessment of productive and reproductive performances of cross breed dairy cows in Debre Tabor town. J Biol Agric Health Sci. 2014;4(23):112-114.
[Google Scholar]
Wondossen A, Mohammed A, Negussie E. Reproductive performance of Holstein Friesian dairy cows in a tropical highland environment. J Adv Dairy Res. 2018;6(2):203.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Dabi SE, Kebede K. Productive and Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cows Horro Horro X Friesian and Horro X Jersey) At Bako Agricultural Research Center. 2015.
[Google Scholar]
Duguma B, Kechero Y, Janssens GP. Productive and reproductive performance of Zebu X Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows in Jimma town, Oromia, Ethiopia. Glob Vet. 2012;8(1):67-72.
[Google Scholar]
Kassa W. Estimation of Genetic and Non-Genetic Parameters for Reproduction and Production Traits of Holstein Friesian Dairy Herd at ELFORA Cheffa Dairy Farm, Oromia Zone of Amhara Region (Doctoral dissertation, MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia).
[Google Scholar]

Author Info

Nibo Beneberu^*

Department of Agricultural Research, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta, Ethiopia

Citation: Beneberu N (2023) Milk Production Performances of Crossbreed Dairy Cattle in Ethiopia: A Short Communication. J Agri Sci Food Res. 14:154.

Received: 08-Aug-2023, Manuscript No. JBFBP-23-26025; Editor assigned: 10-Aug-2023, Pre QC No. JBFBP-23-26025 (PQ); Reviewed: 25-Aug-2023, QC No. JBFBP-23-26025; Revised: 01-Sep-2023, Manuscript No. JBFBP-23-26025 (R); Published: 08-Sep-2023 , DOI: 10.35248/2593- 9173.23.14.154

Copyright: © 2023 Beneberu N. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Journal of Agricultural Science and Food ResearchOpen Access