Buffalo milk production in Brazil and Colombia: Genotype by environment interaction

Naudin Hurtado-Lugo*, Mario Cerón-Muñoz*, Raul Aspilcueta-Borquis, Roberta Sesana, Lucia Galvão de Albuquerque and Humberto Tonhati

Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences (FCAV), University Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal (UNESP), 14884900, SP, Brazil
* GaMMA, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia
Corresponding author: mceronm@hotmail.es

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether there is a genotype by environment interaction (GxE) for dairy buffaloes in Brazil and Colombia. The (co)variance components were estimated by using a bi-trait repeatability animal model with the REML method. Each trait consisted in the milk yield obtained in both countries. Contemporary group (herd, year and season of parity) and age at parity (linear and quadratic covariate) fixed effects, along with the additive genetic, permanent environment, and the residual random effects were included in the model.

Genetic, permanent environmental and residual variance and heritabilities were different for both countries. The genetic correlations for milk yield between Brazil and Colombia were low (between 0.10 and 0.13), indicating a GxE interaction between both countries. Knowing that this interaction influences the genetic progress of buffalo populations in Brazil and Colombia, we recommend choosing sires tested in the country they will be used, along with conducting joint genetic evaluations that consider GxE interaction effects.

Key words: Genetic correlation, Genetic progress, Genotype by environment interaction, Milk yield

Introduction

The  genotype by environment interaction effect has been previously studied, aiming to meet the need of evaluating the genotypes in the environments where they are located (Banos and Smith 1991; Stanton et al 1991; Cienfuegos-Rivas et al 1999; Costa et al 2000; Fikse et al 2003).  This effect reduces the selection response, which negatively impacts milk yield (MY) and thus diminishes the economic return (Stanton et al 1991; Cienfuegos-Rivas et al 1999; Costa et al 2000; Calus et al 2004; Valencia et al 2008).

Genetic evaluation of buffaloes in South American countries has been already implemented, especially in Brazil and Colombia. There is a genotype and environmental variability of MY and also exchange of genetic material in both populations (Aspilcueta-Borquis et al 2010a; 2010b; Gutierrez-Valencia et al 2006; Hurtado-Lugo et al 2006).

In order to conduct genetic evaluations between Brazil and Colombia, it is necessary to understand its viability and importance. The objective of this study was to investigate the existence of a GxE interaction for milk production in buffaloes for these two countries.

Materials and Methods

Data covering 25877 lactations of 13857 buffalo cows from 12 herds in Sao Paulo and Ceará states (Brazil), and five herds in Cordoba and Magdalena provinces (Colombia) were used. Data was provided by the Brazilian Breeder´s Association of Buffaloes (made available through the Universidade Estatual Paulista, Campus de Jaboticabal-Brazil), and the Colombian Buffalo Breeders Association (available through the Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia) (Table 1). The animals of Brazilian herds were raised on Brachiaria spp and Panicum sp pastures, and supplemented with 1 kg concentrate per 3 kg of milk yielded. Animals were also supplemented with forage, especially sugar cane, and mineral salt, offered ad libitum during the dry season (April to October). The AM/PM milking test controls in were conducted keeping the calves close to the dams in order to stimulate milk production.  Some herds used manual milking system.

The animals of Colombian herds were mostly raised on improved and native grasses (Brachiaria spp,  Panicum sp, among others), and to a lesser extent on forages. Animals were supplemented with hay from native grasses (e.g., Dichanthium annulatum), cropped in the same farms during the dry season (December to March). Milking was manual, once a day during the mornings, keeping the calf close to the cow. To take the milk samples, the calf was kept close to the cow, simulating normal milking conditions.

Milk yield was adjusted to 240 (MY240) and 270 (MY270) days in milk (DIM) using the ICAR method (ICAR, 2002), with adjustment factors suggested by Gutierrez-Valencia et al (2006) and Tonhati et al (2004) for Colombia and Brazil, respectively.

The bi-trait analysis was conducted using an animal model with repeated measurements, including the derivative-free restricted maximum likelihood method. The (co)variance components were estimated using the MTDFREML software (Boldman et al 1995). The fixed effects of contemporary group (herd and year of calving), the calving season (Colombia: January-April, May-July, August-October and November-December; and Brazil: April- September, October-March) and age of calving (linear and quadratic effects), as well as the random effects of animal, permanent  environment, and residual, were included. The bi-trait model for 240MY between the 2 countries can be represented in a matrix notation as:

Results and Discussion

The 240MY average was 871±323 and 1638±652 kg for Colombia and Brazil, respectively. Regarding 270MY, the average was 917±356 and 1722±703 kg, for Colombia and Brazil, respectively (Table 2). Other studies in dairy buffaloes in the same countries reported that 240MY and 270MY ranged from 1025 to 1712 kg (Tonhati et al 2004; Hurtado-Lugo et al 2006; Gutierrez-Valencia et al 2006). The average milk yield values reported in this study are in agreement with those for dairy buffalo herds in Asia, India and Europe, which ranged from 796 to 2545 kg (Gogoi et al 1985; Singh and Yadav 1987; Tien and Tripathi 1991; Mathur and Mathur 1992; Rosati and Van Vleck 2002). Variance components, heritabilities, and repeatabilities were within the values reported by others researchers (Aspilcueta-Borquis et al 2010a; 2010b; Rosati and Van Vleck 2002; Tonhati et al 2004; Hurtado-Lugo et al 2006).

Means and genetic, environment and residual variance of milk yield were higher in Brazil, but heritabilities and repeatabilities were similar (Table 2). Several researchers have indicated that variance heterogeneity is due to differences between production systems, environmental conditions specific to each region, herd size and management, and number of daughters per sire (Calus et al 2004; Konig et al 2005; Valencia et al 2008; Stanton et al 1991). In this study, the low number of sires common to both countries may be increasing the heterogeneity of variances. Consequently, this factor should be considered for future joint genetic evaluations.

Genetic correlations between both countries varied from 0.10 to 0.13 (Table 2), indicating that a genotype-environment interaction exists, because there were differences in genetic values and changes in rank of sires (Stanton et al 1991; Hill et al 1983; Calus and Veerkamp 2003), as shown in Figure 1. Because of this, changes were observed in the genetic values ​​and the animals tested were reclassified, implying that the sires evaluated as superior in Brazil may not improve the productive performance of their descendants in Colombia (Table 3).

Figure 1. Breeding values for milk yield (kg) at 240 (left) and 270 (right) days for several buffalo sires in Colombia and Brazil

Conclusions

• Since the GxE affects the genetic progress of dairy buffalo populations of Brazil and Colombia, it is recommended to conduct separate genetic evaluations for each country, along with joint genetic evaluations that consider GxE interaction effects.

  
  

• Considering the importance of species within South America and the little amount of data used in this study, it is recommended that further research be conducted using a more representative sample and should also include other sources of variation that may affect animal performance in those countries.

Implications

• These results indicate there was a marked change generated by the re-classification. Furthermore, large differences were found between breeding values ​​in Brazil and Colombia, indicating that the GxE interaction can significantly influence the selection results for milk production in these populations.

  
  

• Therefore, when selecting sires for genetic merit (breeding value) for total milk production at 240 and 270 days of lactation, the environmental conditions of their future descendants should be considered, thus avoiding large investments in sires, that may not correspond to the production expectations in certain regions of Colombia and Brazil

  
  

• This could be the beginning of a whole series of studies in South America to develop breeding programs in this species. These programs would allow us evaluating and selecting animals under our own productive, environmental, economical, and social conditions.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the logistic support from the Colombian and Brazilian buffalo breeders, and financial support of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural de Colombia, Asociación Colombiana de Criadores de Búfalos, Federación Colombiana de Ganaderos (Fedegan), Ministerio Brasileiro da Agricultura, Pesca e Abastecimento, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and to Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP–Process Nº 2006/59270-3).

References

Aspilcueta-Borquis RR, Sesana R, Berrocal M, Seno O, Bignardi AB, El Faro L, Albuquerque L, Camargo G and Tonhati H 2010b Genetic parameters for milk, fat and protein yields in Murrah buffaloes. Genetics Molecular Biology 33(1):71-77. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v33n1/2008-338.pdf Accessed March. 10, 2010.

Banos G and Smith C 1991 Selecting bulls across countries to maximize genetic improvement in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 108:174-181.

Boldman K, Kriese L D and Van Vleck C 1995 A manual for use of MTDFREML. Lincoln: Department of Agriculture / Agricultural Research Service, 1995. 120, p.

Calus M, Bijma P and Veerkamp R 2004 Effects of data structure on the estimation of covariance functions to describe genotype by environment interactions in a reaction norm model. Genetics Selection Evolution 36: 489-507. http://www.gse-journal.org/index.php?option=com_toc&url=/articles/gse/abs/2004/05/contents/contents.html. Accessed July. 10, 2007

Calus M and Veerkamp R 2003 Estimation of environmental sensitivity of genetic merit for milk production traits using a random regression model. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 3756-3764. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(03)73982-4/abstract Accessed June. 11, 2007.

Cienfuegos-Rivas E, Oltenacu P, Blake R, Schwager S, Castillo-Juarez H and Ruíz H 1999 Interaction between milk yield of Holstein cows in México and the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 2218-2223. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(99)75468-8/abstract. Accessed Feb 21, 2007..

Costa C, Blake R, Pollak E, Oltenacu A, Quaas L and Searle R 2000 Genetic analysis of Holstein cattle populations in Brazil and the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 2963-2974. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(00)75196-4/abstract. Accessed Agus 03, 2007.

Fikse W, Rekaya R and Weigel A 2003 Genotype x Environment interaction for milk production in Guernsey Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86:1821-1827. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(03)73768-0/abstract Accessed Jan. 11, 2007.

Gogoi P, Johar K and Singh A 1985 Genetic analysis of milk yield in Murrah buffaloes. Indian Veterinary  Journal 62:970-975.

Gutierrez-Valencia A, Cerón-Muñoz M, Hurtado-Lugo N 2006 Estimativas de factores de  corrección para duración de la lactancia, edad y época de parto en búfalas de la Costa Atlántica Colombiana. Livestock Research Rural Development 18: (4). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/4/guti18050.htm  Accessed Feb. 15, 2009.

Hill W, Edwards M, Thompson R 1983 Heritability of milk yield and composition at different levels and variability of production. Animal Production 36: 59-68.

Hurtado-Lugo N, Cerón-Muñoz M, Gutierrez-Valencia A 2006 Estimación de parámetros genéticos para la producción de leche en el día del control en búfalos de la Costa Atlántica Colombiana. Livestock Research Rural Development. 18 (3). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/3/hurt18039.htm  Accessed Feb. 19, 2009.

ICAR 2002 Guidelines for buffalo milk recording for low to medium and medium to high input production systems. http://www.icar.org/pages/recording_guidelines.htm  Accessed Jan. 20, 2009.

Konig S, Dietl G, Raeder I, Swalve H 2005 Genetic relationships for dairy performance between large-scale and small-scale farm conditions. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 4087-4096. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(05)73093-9/abstract. Accessed May. 19, 2007.

Mathur AK and Mathur BS 1992 Murrah buffaloes in their breeding tracts. Indian J Animal Science 62: 961-967.

Rosati A and Van Vleck L 2002 Estimation of genetic parameters for milk, fat, protein and mozzarella cheese production in the Italian river buffalo population. Livestock Production Science 74: 82-85.

Singh C and Yadav C 1987 Effect of genetics and non-genetics factors on life time production traits in Indian buffaloes. Indian J Anim Sci 57:555-558.

Stanton T, Blake R, Quaas D, Van Vleck L and Carabaño M 1991 Genotype by environment interaction for Holstein milk yield in Colombia, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. Journal of Dairy Science 74:1700-1714. http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(91)78333-1/abstract. Accessed May. 19, 2007.
 

Tien NQ and Tripathi VN 1991 Effect of age and weight at first calving on first lactation production in Murrah buffaloes.  Buffalo Bulletin 10:3-7.

Tonhati H, Muñoz F, Duarte J, Reichert R, Oliveira R, Lima A 2004 Estimates of correction factors for lactation length and genetic parameters for milk yield in buffaloes. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 251-257.

Valencia M, Montaldo H, Ruíz F 2008 Interaction between genotype and geographic region for milk production in Mexican Holstein cattle. Archivo de Zootecnia 57:457-463.

Received 14 March 2011; Accepted 4 May 2011; Published 1 July 2011

Go to top