Author:
MOTE MAHENDRA GORAKH,BHOITE UDDHAV YASHWANTRAO,NIMBALKAR CHARUDATTA ANANTRAO,MANDAKMALE SANJAY DATTATRAYA
Abstract
Comparative evaluation of FG (50% HF + 50% Gir), IFG (Interse of FG), FJG (50% HF + 25% Jersey + 25% Gir), IFJG (Interse of FJG) and R (50% HF + 12.50% Jersey + 37.50% Gir) crosses of Gir was done on the basis of age at first conception (AFCon), lactation length (LL) and 300 days milk yield (300 DMY) of first, second and third lactations using Mahalanobis D2 statistics. The genetic group differences were significant for each trait separately and simultaneously (V-stat) in all the three lactations. The differences in the D2 values among genetic groups in all three subsets were significant except IFG with R genetic group in first lactation. The total D2 values for AFCon, LL and 300 DMY were 18.85, 1.29 and 8.53 in first; 19.65, 1.90 and 6.91 in second and 21.22, 1.32 and 6.83, in third lactation, respectively. The per cent contribution of AFCon to the total D2 value was maximum followed by 300 DMY and lowest of LL in first, second and third lactation, respectively. Based on D2 values, in first lactation, the FG and FJG (F1) genetic groups were placed in cluster 2 and IFG, IFJG and R genetic groups in cluster 1. In second and third lactations, IFG and IFJG genetic groups formed cluster 1, FG and FJG groups grouped in to cluster 2 and R genetic group formed cluster 3. The magnitude of inter-cluster distance was greater than intra-cluster distance.
Publisher
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Directorate of Knowledge Management in Agriculture
Subject
General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology
Reference13 articles.
1. Arandas J K G, Silva N M V, Nascimento R B, Filho E C P, Brasil L H A and Ribeiro M N. 2017. Multivariate analysis as a tool for phenotypic characterization of an endangered breed. Journal of Applied Animal Research 45(1): 152–58.
2. Boujenane. 2015. Multivariate characterisation of Oulmes-Zaer and Tidili cattle using the morphological traits. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 5(2): 293–99.
3. FAO. 2015. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, Italy. (Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e/index.html).
4. Gacula M C, Gaunt S N and Demon R A. 1968. Genetic and environmental parameters of milk constituents for five breeds. 1. Effect of herd, year, season and age of cow. Journal of Dairy Science 51(3): 428–37.
5. Harvey W R. 1990. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. ARS H-4, USDA, Washington.