genetic impact of progeny testing programme under network project ...

GENETIC IMPACT OF PROGENY TESTING

PROGRAMME UNDER NETWORK PROJECT ON

MURRAH BUFFALO IMPROVEMENT

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

NATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KARNAL

(DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

ANIMAL GENETICS AND BREEDING

BYVIJAY KUMAR

M.V.Sc.(AGB)

DAIRY CATTLE BREEDING DIVISION

NATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

(I.C.A.R.)

KARNAL-132001 (HARYANA), INDIA

2012

Regn. No. 1060901

Dedicated to my beloved parents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I bow my head with great reverence to him, one who is omnipresent, omnipotent

and omniscient and who is the cause behind every effect.

While pursuing my Ph.D degree many seen and unseen hands pushed me forward,

learned soul put me in the right path and enlightened me with their knowledge and

experience. I shall remain grateful to all of them. With great pleasure, I extend my

esteemed sense of gratitude to my Guide, Dr. A.K. Chakravarty, Principal scientist,

Dairy Cattle Breeding Division and Inchage, Artificial Breeding Research Complex,

National Dairy Research Institute, for his sagacious guidance, keen interest, close

supervision, indefatigable encouragement, judicious planning of project and providing

fatherly affection and care during this period. Under his able guidance I discovered many

of my potentials and weaknesses that will guide me on my journey into carrier in

research.

I am thankful to Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, Director, NDRI for providing me

the necessary facilities required for my study and research work and keeping my financial

worries at bay in the form of NDRI fellowship.

It gives me immense pleasure to record my sincere gratitude to the members of

my advisory committee Dr. A.K. Gupta, Principal Scientist, DCB Division, Dr. Avtar

Singh, Principal Scientist, DCB Division, Dr. I.D. Gupta, Principal Scientist, DCB

Division, Dr. Ravindra Malhotra, Principal Scientist, DES&M and Dr. T.K. Mohanty,

Senior Scientist, LPM for their guidance at all stages of my research.

I also extend my thanks to Dr. R.K. Sethi, Director CIRB, Hisar, Dr. A.K. Jain,

Professor, AGB, GADVASU, Ludhiana, Dr. A.K. Verma, Professor, LPM, CCSHAU,

Hisar Dr. R. S. Gandhi, Head, DCB Division for their help and affectionate

countenance towards me.

My special thanks go to Mr. Gian Singh, Technical Officer, Computer Section

for his invaluable inputs towards my research.

My sincerest gratitude to all my cordial friends and colleagues, Manoj, Atul,

Alka, Gokul, Muneendra, JP, Bitan, Pankaj, ShivRaj, Raju, Talata, Mangesh, Shashikant,

Shashipal Sir, Shashibhuson, Himanshu, Sontosh Mishra, Ravi Kant Lakmana, Kunal,

Mohsin, Rais, Apurva, Gulab and Ajit who openly accepted me as a colleague and were

all supportive whenever I needed help in various aspects whether it be finding articles,

books, consultations or the subject matter discussions that enlightened me. I will always

treasure in my memory the support, kindness, the moments of laughter and the many

pleasure trips with my friends during my stay at Karnal and I feel honoured to have spent

the best days of my life at NDRI. I would like to tender my sincere apologies for all the

troubles and difficulties I might have caused to anyone. I wish you success in your

studies and healthy lives for you and your esteemed families.

I would like to thank the faculty members of the Dairy Cattle Breeding Division,

NDRI, staff of the Record Section Mr. Raghuvir, Mr. Yogendra, Mr. Arjun, Mr. Vikram,

Mr Sohan Lal, Mr. Y.P.Singh, Kameshwar and others for their assistance whenever

needed.

I thank Drs. Deepak Sharma, Prakash Sharma, Jagan, Yaju Sir, Jai Kumar, Vikas

Vohra, Rajesh, Ramesh, Vilas, Devendu, Brishketu and Asit for their words on

professional life. I would like to express my affection to my loving juniors Drs. Chandu,

Jamuna, Atul, Chandan, Rajesh, Yatish, Vishwash, Raghu, Ankit, Shakti, Krishnendra,

Arpan, Amit Kenhad, Mukesh, Manoj, Anil, Bijay, Man Singh, Naval Parikh and Nitin

for keeping my morale high.

The present endeavor could not have glanced on the canvass of reality without the

blessing love and deep affection of my parents, brothers Sanjay and Ajay, Sister

Sangeeta, Nephew Harsh and nieces Shorya and Yana whose sustained encouragement

and love have always give me a new impetus to move forward. I would like to hold this

opportunity to express my profound feeling of reverence and love for my family.

Above all, I would like thank the almighty God for giving me patience and

strength to overcome the difficulties and accomplish this endeavor.

NDRI, Karnal Vijay Kumar

July 2012

ABSTRACT

Data on first lactation traits of 832 Murrah buffaloes sired by 95 bulls, over a

period of 14 years from 1995 to 2008 under four centres of Network Project on Murrah

buffalo Improvement, were used for the study. Information from Set I to Set VII were

collected from NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU, Ludhiana, whereas for Set VI

and Set VII information were collected from CCSHAU, Hisar. NDRI centre performed better

for FSP, similarly GADVASU centre for 305WA and OWA. Though CCSHAU had better

305MY and TMY however the numbers of observations for those traits were less.

The heritability estimates of most of the first lactation production traits were found

medium. The estimates of genetic and phenotypic correlations revealed that TD6MY and

305WA were highly correlated with 305MY in Murrah buffalo. Using pooled information,

the overall expected genetic gain per generation for first lactation 305 days milk yield was

found maximum (63.38 kg) in set III and the overall maximum annual expected genetic gain

for first lactation 305 days milk yield was found 13.51 kg (0.78%) in set III, while minimum

annual expected genetic gain for the same trait was found as 1.87 kg (0.10 %) in set II.

Centre-wise highest annual expected genetic gain was obtained about 0.82% i.e. 15.96 kg in

NDRI, Karnal (set VI) and 14.53 kg in GADVASU, Ludhiana (set V) while the same was

found lowest as -0.03% i.e. -0.60 kg in GADVASU, Ludhiana (set II) and -0.58 kg in

CCSHAU, Hisar (set VI). The average annual expected genetic gain for 305MY was

estimated as 0.45 % over the sets.

Four methods (CC, LS, SRLS and BLUP) were used to estimate the breeding values of

Murrah bulls. The ranking of bulls based on their estimated BVs were found almost similar

using 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY in each method. The findings of rank correlation study

showed that rank correlations based on breeding values for 305MY were found highly

significant among all the four methods in all the seven sets. Similar findings were obtained

for rank correlation between different methods based on breeding values for TD6MY and for

305WA.

Genetic impact study revealed that daughters of top two proven bulls were superior in

production traits than average of all daughters performance in each set. Among CIRB, NDRI

and GADVASU centres, the performance of GADVASU centre for 305MY, TMY and

305WA were found better followed by NDRI and CIRB centre. For reproduction traits (AFC

and FSP) the performance was found better in NDRI and GADVASU centre. NDRI centre

however had marginally better performance over GADVASU centre for first service period.

सारांशसारांशसारांशसारांश

वत�मान अ�ययन म� 832 मरुा� भसै पर आंकड� का ूयोग �कया गया । यह

सचूना नेटवक� प"रयोजना के चार के$ि� (एन ड' आर आइ , सी आइ आर बी

, गडवास ु तथा सी सी एस एच ए य ु) से िलया गया । एन ड' आर आइ के$ि

ूथम सर.बस अवधी का बेहतर प"रणाम �दया । इसी तरह गडवास ु मे वेट

एवरेज का बेहतर प"रणाम पाया गया। य2.प सी सी एस एच ए य ु मे भसेै

कम थी ले�कन यहाँ ूथम 4यात दध उ6पादन का बेहतर प"रणामू पाया गया।

ूथम 4यात दध उ6पादन वाले अिधकांशू गुण� का हे"रते.बिलट' म�यम

पाया गया। 305 �दन दध उ6पादन औरू टेःट डे ६ के बीच को"रलेसन सबसे

:यादा पाया गया। नेटवक� प"रयोजना मे अिधकतम वा.ष�क आनवंुिशक लाभ

(0.78%) सेट 3 मे पाया गया, जब�क $यनूतम वा.ष�क आनवंुिशक लाभ

(0.10%) सेट 2 मे पाया गया। के$ि-वार सव>?च वा.ष�क आनवंुिशक लाभ

(0.82%) एन ड' आर आइ, सेट 6 और गडवास ु सेट 5 मे पाया गया, जब�क

$यनूतम वा.ष�क आनवंुिशक लाभ (-0.03%) गडवास,ु सेट 2 और सी सी एस एच

ए य ु, सेट 6 मे पाया गया। नेटवक� प"रयोजना मे औसतन वा.ष�क आनवंुिशक

लाभ 0.45% पाया गया।

मरुा� सांड� का ॄी�डंग मूAय� का अनमुान चार पBित (सी सी, एल एस, एस

आर एल एस और बलप) का ूयोग कर �कया गया । सांड� का ॄी�डंग मAूय का

अनमुान तीन गुण� (305 �दन दध उ6पादनू , वेट एवरेज और टेःट डे ६) का

ूयोग कर �कया गया । सांड� का रC�कंग �कया गया । सांड� के रC�कंग मे

को"रलेसन अ�ययन से यह पता चला कD ॄी�डंग मAूय िनकालने कD सभी चार

पBितया सामान थे और तीनो गणु भी सांड� का सामान र�क दे रहे थे।

अ�ययन से यह पता चला कD चोट' के दो िसB सांड� के प.ुऽय� का

औसत उ6पादन सेट के औसत उ6पादन से अिधक था। चारो के$ि� मे गडवास ु

के$ि का दध उ6पादन छमता बेहतर पाू या गया। जब�क एन ड' आर आइ

के$ि का ूजनन छमता बेहतर पाया गया।

CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-3

2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-25

2.1 Performance traits 4

2.1.1 Production traits 4

2.1.1.1 First lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah Buffalo 4

2.1.1.1.1Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation 305MY 4

2.1.1.1.2Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation 305MY 4

2.1.1.2 Test-day Milk Yield in Murrah Buffalo 5

2.1.1.2.1Effect of Season of Calving on Test-day Milk Yield 5

2.1.1.2.2Effect of Period of Calving on Test-Day Milk Yield 5

2.1.1.3 First lactation average daily milk yield 5

2.1.1.3.1Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation average daily milk yield 5

2.1.1.3.2Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation average daily milk yield 6

2.1.1.4 First lactation length in Murrah buffalo 6

2.1.1.4.1Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation length in Murrah buffalo 6

2.1.1.4.2Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation length in Murrah buffalo 6

2.1.2 Reproduction traits 6

2.1.2.1 Age at first calving in Murrah buffalo 6

2.1.2.1.1Effect of Season of Calving on AFC in Murrah buffalo 6

2.1.2.1.2Effect of Period of Calving on AFC in Murrah buffalo 9

2.1.2.2 First service period in Murrah buffalo 10

2.1.2.2.1Effect of Season of Calving on FSP in Murrah buffalo 10


2.1.2.2.2Effect of Period of Calving on FSP in Murrah buffalo 10

2.2 Genetic Parameters 11

2.2.1 Heritability estimates of first lactation performance traits in Murrah Buffalo 11

2.2.2 Phenotypic and genetic correlations 14

2.3 Genetic gain 16

2.4 Methods of Sire Evaluation 17

2.4.1 Contemporary Comparison 17

2.4.2 Least-Squares 18

2.4.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares 19

2.4.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction 20

2.5 Comparison of effectiveness of various methods of sire evaluation 21

2.6 Impact Analysis of Network Project on Buffalo Improvement 25

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 26-34

3.1 Source of Data 26

3.2 Location of Centres and Climatic conditions 26

3.3 Basic Information 26

3.4 Traits considered for the study 26

3.4.1 Traits recorded 26

3.4.2 Traits generated 27

3.5 Standardization of Records 27

3.6 Classification of Data 27

3.6.1 Year of Calving 27

3.6.2 Season of Calving 27

3.6.3 Centre/Farm 27

3.7 Statistical Analysis 28


3.7.1 Measure of Central Tendency and Dispersion 28

3.7.2 Least-Squares Analysis for adjustment of data 28

3.7.3 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test 28

3.7.4 Estimation of Heritability 29

3.7.5 Genetic and Phenotypic Correlations 30

3.7.5.1 Genetic Correlations 30

3.7.5.2 Phenotypic Correlations 30

3.8 Estimation of Expected Genetic Gain for 305MY / 305WA 31

3.8.1 Expected Genetic gain per generation 31

3.8.2 Expected Genetic gain per year 31

3.9 Genetic Evaluation of Murrah bulls 31

3.9.1 Contemporary Comparison Method 31

3. 9.2 Least-Squares Method 32

3. 9.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares (SRLS) Method 32

3. 9.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) Method 33

3.10 Effectiveness of various sire evaluation methods 34

3.10.1 Spearman’s rank correlation 34

3.11 Impact Analysis of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement 34

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35-168

4.1 Performance of various reproduction and production traits in Murrah buffaloes 35

4.1.1 Reproduction Traits 35

4.1.1.1 Age at first calving (AFC) 36

4.1.1.2 First service period (FSP) 36

4.1.2 Production Traits 36

4.1.2.1 First lactation 305 days milk yield (305MY) 36


4.1.2.2 First lactation total milk yield (TMY) 37

4.1.2.3 First lactation 305 days wet average (305WA) 37

4.1.2.4 First lactation overall wet average (305WA) 37

4.1.2.5 First lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY) 37

4.2 Factors affecting various Reproduction and Production Traits in 73

Murrah buffaloes

4.2.1 Reproduction Traits 73

4.2.1.1 Age at first calving (AFC) 73

4.2.1.2 First service period (FSP) 73

4.2.2 Production Traits 74

4.2.2.1 First lactation 305 days milk yield (305MY) 74

4.2.2.2 First lactation total milk yield (TMY) 75

4.2.2.3 First lactation 305 days wet average (305WA) 75

4.2.2.4 First lactation overall wet average (305WA) 75

4.2.2.5 First lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY) 75

4.3 Heritability estimates of first lactation performance traits in Murrah buffaloes 86

4.4 Genetic and Phenotypic correlations 86

4.5 Genetic gain estimation 88

4.5.1 Expected genetic gain for first lactation 305 days milk yield 88

4.5.1.1 Expected genetic gain for overall Network project 88

4.5.1.2 Expected genetic gain for NDRI Centre 90

4.5.1.3 Expected genetic gain for CIRB Centre 91

4.5.1.4 Expected genetic gain for GADVASU Centre 93

4.5.1.5 Expected genetic gain for CCSHAU Centre 94

4.5.2 Expected genetic gain for first lactation 305 days wet average 95


4.5.2.1 Expected genetic gain for overall Network project 95

4.5.2.2 Expected genetic gain for NDRI Centre 96

4.5.2.3 Expected genetic gain for CIRB Centre 98

4.5.2.4 Expected genetic gain for GADVASU Centre 99

4.5.2.5 Expected genetic gain for CCSHAU Centre 101

4.6 Genetic Evaluation of Murrah Bulls 113

4.6.1 Sire evaluation methods 113

4.6.1.1 Breeding value estimation for first lactation 305 days or less milk yield 113

4.6.1.1.1Contemporary Comparison Method 113

4.6.1.1.2 Least-Squares Method 115

4.6.1.1.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares Method 117

4.6.1.1.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction Method 119

4.6.1.2 Breeding value estimation for first lactation 305-day wet average 120

4.6.1.2.1 Contemporary Comparison Method 121




4.6.1.3 Breeding value estimation for first lactation test day 6 milk yield 128

4.6.1.3.1 Contemporary Comparison Method 128




4.7 Effectiveness of Sire Evaluation Methods for Murrah bulls 156

4.8 Impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement 159

4.8.1 Impact of genetic gain on Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement 167


4.8.2 Impact of breeding value of bulls on Network Project on Murrah 167

buffalo Improvement

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 169-173

BIBLIOGRAPHY I-X

List of Table

Table No. Title Page No.

1 Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on first lactation 7

305-days or less milk yield in Murrah Buffalo

2 Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on First lactation 8

monthly test day milk yield in Murrah buffalo

3 Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on Average first 8

lactation daily milk yield in Murrah buffalo

4 Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors first lactation 9

length in Murrah buffalo

5 Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on AFC 10

6 Average performance and effect of period and season on first service period 11

7 Heritability estimate for first lactation 305-days milk yield in Murrah buffalo 12

8 Heritability estimate for monthly first lactation test day milk yield 12

9 Heritability estimate for average first lactation daily milk yield in Murrah buffalo 13

10 Heritability estimate for first lactation length in Murrah buffalo 13

11 Heritability estimate for age at first calving in Murrah buffalo 14

12 Heritability estimate for first service period in Murrah buffalo 14

13 Genetic and phenotypic correlations between first lactation 305-days or less 15

milk yield with other traits in Murrah buffalo

14 Genetic and phenotypic correlations between AFC with other traits in 16

Murrah buffalo

15 Means, standard deviation, standard errors and coefficients of variation of 38

reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre

in Set I.




in Set II



in Set III



in Set IV



in Set V



in Set VI



in Set VII


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using NDRI

centre pooled information


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre

in Set I




in Set II



in Set III


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB

centre in Set IV



in Set V



in Set VI



in Set VII


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using CIRB centre

pooled infirmation


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU

centre in Set I




centre in Set II



centre in Set III



centre in Set IV



centre in Set V



centre in Set VI



centre in Set VII


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using GADVASU



reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CCSHAU

centre in Set VI



reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CCSHAU

centre in Set VII


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using CCSHAU



reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using pooled

information of Set I



information of Set II



information of Set III



information of Set IV



information of Set V



information of Set VI




information of Set VII


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using overall

pooled information

50a Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information 77

of first lactation traits in Murrah buffaloes

50b Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information 79

of TD1MY to TD6MY in Murrah buffaloes

50c Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information 81

of TD7MY to TD11MY in Murrah buffaloes

51 Analysis of variance (M. S. values) of production and reproduction traits of 83

Murrah buffaloes using overall pooled information

52 Heritability, genetic and phenotypic correlation of production traits in 87

Murrah buffaloes using overall pooled information

53 Set-wise generation interval for pooled data and for each centre 88

54 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY using Pooled Data 102

55 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA using Pooled Data 103

56 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for NDRI centre 104

57 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for NDRI centre 105

58 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for CIRB centre 106

59 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for CIRB centre 107

60 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for GADVASU centre 108

61 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for GADVASU centre 109


62 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for CCSHAU centre 110

63 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for CCSHAU centre 110

64 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set I 135

65 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set I 136

66 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set I 136

67 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set I 137

68 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set I 137

69 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set I 138

70 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set II 138

71 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set II 139

72 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set II 139

73 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set II 140

74 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set II 140

75 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set II 141

76 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set III 141

77 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set III 142

78 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set III 142

79 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set III 143

80 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set III 143

81 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set III 144

82 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set IV 144

83 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set IV 145

84 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set IV 145

85 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set IV 146

86 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set IV 146


87 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set IV 147

88 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set V 147

89 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set V 148

90 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set V 148

91 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set V 149

92 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set V 149

93 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set V 150

94 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set VI 150

95 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set VI 151

96 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set VI 151

97 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set VI 152

98 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set VI 152

99 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set VI 153

100 Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY using in Set VII 153

101 Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set VII 154

102 Breeding Values of bulls for TD6 in Set VII 154

103 Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set VII 155

104 Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set VII 155

105 Ranking of bulls for TD6 in Set VII 156

106 Spearman’s Rank Correlations between methods based on BVs for 305MY 157

107 Spearman’s Rank Correlations between methods based on BVs for 305WA 157

108 Spearman’s Rank Correlations between methods based on BVs for TD6MY 158

109 Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305MY and 305WA using different 158

methods


110 Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305MY and TD6 using different 158

methods

111 Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305WA and TD6 159

112 Comparative first lactation reproductive and productive trait performance 159

of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set I


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set II


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set III


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set IV


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set V


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set VI


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set VII

119 Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls from one 165

centre,performed in different centres

120 Average performance (AFC) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre, 165

performed in different centres

121 Average performance (FSP) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre, 165


122 Overall and centre-wise highest and lowest annual genetic gain for 305MY 167

123 Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for 305MY 168


124 Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for 305 WA 168

125 Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for TD6MY 168

List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Overall and centre-wise age at first calving of Murrah buffalo 84

2 Overall and centre-wise first service period of Murrah buffalo 84

3 Overall and centre-wise first lactation 305 days milk yield of 85

Murrah buffalo

4 Overall and centre-wise first lactation 305 days wet average of 85

Murrah buffalo

5 Overall and centre-wise first lactation monthly test day milk yield 86

of Murrah buffalo

6 Set-wise overall expected genetic gain for 305MY using pooled data 111

7 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY in NDRI, CIRB and 111

GADVASU centres

8 Set-wise overall expected genetic gain for 305WA using pooled data 112

9 Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA in NDRI, CIRB and 112

GADVASU centres

10 Set-wise AFC of Murrah buffalo 162

11 Set-wise FSP of Murrah buffalo 162

12 Set-wise 305MY of Murrah buffalo 163

13 Set-wise TMY of Murrah buffalo 163

14 Set-wise 305WA of Murrah buffalo 164

15 Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls from 166

one centre, performed in different centres

Figure No. Title Page No.

16 Average performance (AFC) of daughters of proven bulls from 166


17 Average performance (FSP) of daughters of proven bulls from 167


ABBREVIATIONS

AFC : Age at first calving

BLUP : Best linear unbiased prediction method

CCM : Contemporary comparison method

CCSHAU : Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University

CIRB : Central Institute for Research on Buffalo

CV : Coefficient of variation

DIM : Days in milk

DMRT : Duncan’s multiple range tests

EBV : Estimated breeding value

FLL : First lactation length

FSP : First service period

GADVASU : Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

GI : Generation Interval

h2 : Heritability

LS : Least squares method

NDRI : National Dairy Research Institute

OWA : First lactation overall wet average

PHS : Paternal half sib

REML : Restricted maximum likelihood

SD : Standard deviation

SDA : Simple daughter average

SE : Standard error

SRLS : Simple regressed least square

TDMY : First lactation monthly test day milk yield

TMY : First lactation total milk yield

305MY : First lactation 305-days or less lactation milk yield

305WA : First lactation average per day milk yield per buffalo

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian economy as agriculture and allied sectors

contribute nearly 14 per cent of the Gross Domestic Production. Livestock sector contributes

about 28-30 per cent to agricultural GDP (Anonymous, 2011). About 52 per cent of the

population is engaged in agriculture and rearing of livestock in the country. India is regarded

as a treasure house of world’s best buffalo germplasm. Buffalo is not only a better source of

milk but also provides meat and works as a draught animal in India.

As per the 18th

All India Livestock Census (Anonymous, 2008), out of the total cattle

and buffalo population, India has 199.07 million (65.40%) cattle and 105.34 million

(34.60%) buffaloes and buffalo population in the country accounts for 56 per cent of the

world’s buffalo population (FAO, 2008). The average milk productivity of buffaloes in India

is much higher (4.30 kg/day/animal) than indigenous cattle (1.97 Kg/day/animal) which

revealed the importance of buffalo as compared to cattle. The contribution of buffaloes to the

total milk production of India (110 million tonnes) is around 56 per cent and are thereby

rightly considered as India’s milking machine although the number of buffaloes is less than

cattle in India. The superiority of buffalo over indigenous cow with regard to milk production

is widely observed in India. It is now well established that buffalo represents a unique species

in terms of feed conversion ability with low grade feeds, ability to sustain under adverse

climatic conditions, resistance to diseases and production of high value milk containing a

higher fat per cent. Buffaloes are also backbone of Indian dairy industry.

There are fifteen breeds of buffaloes in our country, among them Murrah is one of the

best milch breed of buffaloes with tremendous potential for further genetic improvement.

Keeping the importance of buffalo in the country, progeny testing for buffalo was first started

by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under All India Coordinated Research

Project (AICRP) on buffalo in 1971. There were four centres working under AICRP on

buffalo. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal and Punjab Agricultural University,

Ludhiana for Murrah breed and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (Rajasthan) and University

of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwar for Surti and Mehsana breeds. In the year 1993, AICRP on

buffalo was converted into Network Project on Buffalo Improvement. The Network Project

on Buffalo Improvement was initiated with the objective to envisage and undertake progeny

testing for improvement of Murrah breed at various centres in different parts of the country.

The project also initiated to increase the intensity of selection of bulls from multiple

2

institutional herds and also increase the accuracy of progeny testing of breeding bulls by

increasing the number of progeny per bull. At present six institutional herds namely Central

Institute for Research on Buffalo (CIRB), Hisar, National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI),

Karnal and Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), Izatnagar from ICAR institutions and

Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana,

Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar and Narendra

Dev University of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT), Faizabad from SAUs are involved

for evaluation of Murrah bulls.

Under the existing buffalo improvement programme in organized herds, Murrah test

bulls under progeny testing are selected on the basis of their pedigree, breed characteristics,

body conformity, position of testis, semen consistency, post thaw motility of sperms and bulls

are free from various diseases. On the other hand, the elite breedable buffaloes are selected

on the basis of more than 2500 kg of milk yield in any lactation. The expected producing

ability (EPA) is also used as one of the criteria for selection of superior female buffaloes for

milk production. For estimating the EPA, number of lactation, complete lactation milk yield,

herd average and genetic parameters are taken into consideration however; the weightage is

not given for the variation in lactation length of female buffaloes for selection. It has also

been observed that in general, the lactation length of buffaloes is shorter than in comparison

to cattle.

Test bulls are evaluated based on their daughters 305-days or less milk yield without

taking into account of variation in lactation days though the variation on lactation length of

buffaloes is reflected in persistency. Genetic evaluation of dairy bulls for milk production

based on individual monthly test-day yields rather than 305-days or less milk yield has a

number of benefits (Jamrozik and Schaeffer, 1997). Today in most of the countries like USA,

Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Denmark etc., because of variability of lactation

days of dairy animals, the use of test-day milk yield instead of 305-days lactation yield is of

more interest in genetic evaluation of dairy bulls.

Till today seven sets of Murrah bulls have been evaluated through progeny testing

under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement. However, the genetic improvement in terms

of genetic gain per year and genetic gain per generation for milk production in each centre

involved in Network Project on Buffalo Improvement as well as the overall genetic

improvement using bulls in various centres has not been studied. Keeping the importance of

3

genetic gain in breed improvement programme, it was also highlighted by ICAR in 219th

Governing Body meeting held on 4th

January, 2011, that genetic gain on performance of

livestock breeds should be estimated by all the ICAR institutes.

At present the contemporary comparison method is the only method used for sire

evaluation under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement. However other methods viz.,

Least-Squares, Simple Regressed Least-Squares and Best Linear Unbiased Prediction as used

by various countries for the evaluation of their breeding bulls have not been studied and

compared the breeding values of buffalo bulls under Network Project on Buffalo

Improvement. Further, the impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement in

terms of performance evaluation of various herds has also not been studied.

Keeping the above in view, an attempt is being made in the present investigation to

assess the genetic impact of progeny testing of Murrah buffalo under Network Project on

Buffalo Improvement with the following objectives.

Objectives:

1. To estimate herd-wise and overall genetic gain for milk production in Murrah

buffaloes under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement.

2. To estimate and compare the breeding values of Murrah bulls through different

methods using monthly first lactation test day and 305 days milk yield.

3. To assess the overall impact of progeny testing programme under Network Project on

Murrah buffalo Improvement.

4

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The work carried out earlier has been reviewed under the following headings as per the

objectives of the present study:

2.1 Performance traits

2.2 Genetic parameters

2.3 Genetic gain

2.4 Sire evaluation

2.5 Comparison of effectiveness of various methods of sire evaluation

2.6 Impact analysis

2.1 Performance traits

2.1.1 Production traits

2.1.1.1 First lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah Buffalo

The average first lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah buffaloes ranged from

1355.4 ± 18.96 kg (Sharma and Singh, 1988) to 1964.00 ± 38.6 kg (Singh et al., 1990) (Table

1).

2.1.1.1.1 Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation 305-days or less milk yield in

Murrah Buffalo

The effect of season of calving on 305 MY reported significant (El-Arian, 1986; Gajbhiye,

1987; Hatwar and Chawla, 1988; Nath, 1996) and non-significant (Sharma, 1982; Sahana,

1993; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Jain, 1996; Wakchaure et al., 2008; Gupta, 2009).

2.1.1.1.2 Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation 305-days or less milk yield in

Murrah Buffalo

Reports available showed significant effect of period of calving on 305 MY (El-Arian, 1986:

Gajbhiye, 1987: Hatwar and Chawla, 1988; Tomar and Tripathi, 1988; Singh et al., 1990;

Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Dass and Sharma, 1994; Jain, 1996; Nath, 1996; Saha, 1998;

Wakchaure et al., 2008; Gupta, 2009).

5

2.1.1.2 First lactation monthly test day milk yield in Murrah Buffalo

Minimum TDMY was found to be 3.91 ± 0.17 kg (Geetha, 2005) and 4.58 ± 0.11 kg

(Katneni, 2007) on test day 11 while Maximum TDMY was found to be 7.15 ± 0.15 kg

(Geetha, 2005) and 8.05 ± 0.11 kg (Katneni, 2007) on test day 3 (Table 2).

2.1.1.2.1 Effect of Season of Calving on Test-day Milk Yield

Khosla et al. (1984) reported that the season of calving had significant effect on the

monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah buffaloes. El-Arian (1986) reported that the season of

calving had significantly affected monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah buffaloes. Garcha

and Dev (1994) analyzed monthly test day milk yield data of 314 buffaloes and reported that

the effect of season of calving was significant on all the test-day milk yields.

2.1.1.2.2 Effect of Period of Calving on Test-Day Milk Yield

Khosla et al. (1984) reported that the period of calving had significant effect on all the

monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah buffaloes. Rao and Sharma (1985) reported that the

milk yield was significantly affected by period of calving in week 11-21, 30-32, 34 and 36 of

lactation in Murrah buffaloes. El-Arian (1986) reported that the period of calving had

significant effect on all the monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah buffaloes. Dass (1995)

observed that the effect of period of calving was significant on all the test day milk yields

except for 6th

monthly test-day milk yield in the first lactation of Murrah buffaloes. Geetha

(2005) observed that the effect of year of calving was significant on all the monthly test-day

milk yields in Murrah buffaloes except on the 35th

, 215th

and 305th

test day milk yields.

2.1.1.3 First lactation average daily milk yield in Murrah buffalo

The trait is important to know the milk producing capacity of animal. The range of the

average milk yield per day of first lactation length was 3.73 ± 0.86 (Sharma, 1982) to 8.60

kg/day (Khosla et al., 1984) (Table 3).

2.1.1.3.1 Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation average daily milk yield in Murrah

buffalo

Significant effect of period of calving on first lactation average daily milk yield was

observed by Sharma, 1982; Kumar, 1984 Hatwar and Chawla, 1988; Sahana, 1993; Nath,

1996 while non-significant effect was observed by Khosla et al., 1984 and Shabade et al.,

1993.

6

2.1.1.3.2 Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation average daily milk yield in

Murrah buffalo

Significant effect of season of calving on first lactation average daily milk yield was

observed by El-Arian, 1986, Hatwar and Chawla, 1988 and Nath, 1996 while non-significant

effect was observed by Sharma (1982) and Singh and Yadav (1987).

2.1.1.4 First lactation length in Murrah buffalo

The first lactation length in Murrah buffaloes ranged from 278.26 ± 3.19 days

(Geetha, 2005) to 373.10 ± 5.80 days (Sharma and Singh, 1988) (Table 4).

2.1.1.4.1 Effect of Season of Calving on first lactation length in Murrah buffalo

The effect of season of calving on FLL reported significant (Nath, 1996) and non-

significant (Sahana, 1993; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Wakchaure, 2007; Gupta, 2009).

2.1.1.4.2 Effect of Period of Calving on first lactation length in Murrah buffalo

Reports available showed significant effect (Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Nath, 1996;

Wakchaure, 2007; Gupta, 2009) and non-significant effect (Shabade et al., 1993) of period of

calving on FLL.

2.1.2 Reproduction traits

2.1.2.1 Age at first calving in Murrah buffalo

It is an important economic trait because lower age at first calving leads to shorter

generation interval and hence increases in genetic gain. Reports available in literature

indicated that the average age at first calving in Murrah buffaloes ranged from 1216.64 ±

17.03 (Gogoi et al.,1985) to 1653.20 ± 20.18 days (Yadav et al., 1983) (Table 5).

2.1.2.1.1 Effect of Season of Calving on AFC in Murrah buffalo

Significant effect of season of birth on AFC was reported by Gogoi et al. (1985),

Sahana (1993), Wakchaure et al., 2008 and Gupta (2009), whereas non significant effect was

observed by Dutt and Yadav (1988), Dass (1995), Nath (1996) and Nawale (2010).

7

Table 1: Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on first lactation 305-

days or less milk yield in Murrah Buffalo

Non-Genetic

Factors N Mean ± SE

(kg)

Period Season

References

628 1707.40 ± 28.50 - - Singh and Basu, 1988

318 1413.30 ± 30.70 S NS Tomar and Tripathi, 1988

478 1355.40 ± 18.96 NS NS Sharma and Singh, 1988

1352 1964.00 ± 38.60 S S Singh et al., 1990

1926 1457.60 ± 09.10 S NS Ipe and Nagarcenkar, 1992

424 1785.19 ± 22.19 S NS Sahana, 1993

94 1392.20 ± 122.60 NS NS Shabade et al., 1993

404 1648.00 ± 22.00 S S Dass and Sharma, 1994

690 1606.89 ± 23.94 S NS Dhara, 1994

628 1752.62 ± 21.22 S NS Dass, 1995

- 1784.90 ± 16.70 S S Nath, 1996

- 1748.70 ± 26.70 S NS Jain and Sadana, 1998

491 1957.58 ± 21.48 S NS Saha, 1998

518 1794.00 ± 22.12 - - Banik and Tomar, 2002

176 1637.60 ± 41.49 - - Geetha, 2005

441 1910.53 ± 28.72 - - Katneni, 2007

1161 - S NS Wakchaure et al., 2008

248 - S NS Gupta, 2009

702 1754.79 ± 28.57 S NS Patil, 2011

8

Table 2: Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on first lactation

monthly test day milk yield in Murrah buffalo

Non-Genetic

Factors

Minimum

TDMY (kg)

Maximum

TDMY (kg)

Average

TDMY (kg)

Period Season

References

3.91 ± 0.17

(TD11)

7.15 ± 0.15

(TD3) - S -

Geetha, 2005

4.58 ± 0.11

(TD11)

8.05 ± 0.11

(TD3)

6.45 ± 0.10

S S

Katneni, 2007

Table 3: Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on average first

lactation daily milk yield in Murrah buffalo

Non-Genetic

Factors N

Mean ± SE

(kg)

Period Season

References

2223 5.68 ± 0.07 - - Reddy, 1980

804 3.73 ± 0.86 S NS Sharma, 1982

392 5.20 ± 0.62 - - Yadav et al., 1983

1144 5.65 ± 0.08 S S Kumar, 1984

1108 8.60 NS NS Khosla et al., 1984

210 4.83 ± 0.10 S S El-Arian, 1986

1823 5.13 ± 0.31 - - Singh and Yadav, 1987

478 5.43 ± 0.07 S S Hatwar and Chawla, 1988

605 6.25 ± 0.06 S NS Sahana, 1993


149 5.71 ± 0.65 - - Narasimharao and Sreemannarayana, 1994

- 5.92 ± 0.04 S S Nath, 1996

- 6.75 ± 0.10 - - Katneni, 2007

- 7.50 - - Annual report, NDRI, 2010

9

Table 4: Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors first lactation length in

Murrah buffalo

Non-Genetic

Factors N

Mean ± SE

(days)

Period Season

References

478 373.10 ± 5.80 S NS Sharma and Singh, 1988

424 302.68 ± 3.08 S NS Sahana, 1993


404 306.00 ± 4.00 S NS Dass and Sharma, 1994

683 289.55 ± 3.68 S NS Dhara, 1994

149 329.40 ± 3.90 - - Narasimharao and Sreemannarayana, 1994

628 324.99 ± 3.36 S NS Dass, 1995

- 317.64 ± 2.58 S S Nath, 1996

- 313.00 ± 3.19 - - Rana et al., 2002

- 319.50 ± 4.97 - - Sheoron et al., 2002

259 319.49 ± 4.54 - - Kumar et al., 2002

1003 303.74 ± 5.92 - - Yadav et al., 2002

176 278.26 ± 3.19 - - Geetha, 2005

441 323.62 ± 3.73 - - Katneni, 2007

1161 321.21 ± 2.25 S NS Wakchaure, 2007

248 326.13 ± 6.70 S NS Gupta, 2009

2.1.2.1.2 Effect of Period of Calving on AFC in Murrah buffalo

Significant difference in age at first calving due to period of birth was reported by

Sharma (1982), Jain and Taneja (1982), Gogoi et al. (1985), Wakchaure et al. (2008), Gupta

(2009) and Nawale (2010).

10

2.1.2.2 First service period in Murrah buffalo

The literature available indicated that the average first service period in Murrah

buffaloes ranged from 143.41 ± 3.97 (Nath, 1996) to 281.50 ± 8.65 days (Yadav et al., 1983)

(Table 6).

2.1.2.2.1 Effect of Season of Calving on first service period in Murrah buffalo

Significant effect of season of calving on FSP was reported by Wakchaure et al.,

2008, Chakraborty (2008), and Nawale (2010).

2.1.2.2.2 Effect of Period of Calving on first service period in Murrah buffalo

Significant effect of period of calving on FSP was found by Wakchaure et al., 2008,

Chakraborty (2008), Dhara, (1994) and Nawale (2010). On the other hand Gupta, 2009 did

not observe any significant effect of period of calving on FSP.

Table 5: Average performance and effect of non-genetic factors on age at first calving

Non Genetic

Factors

No. of

observations

Mean ± S.E.

(days)

Period Season

References

716 1374.48±15.99 S S Gupta et al., 1994

701 1316.46±6.81 S NS Dhara, 1994

628 1381.26±9.26 S NS Dass, 1995

832 1330.79±7.42 S NS Nath, 1996

1164 1273.00±10.00 S S Dutt et al., 2001

316 1315.00±16.38 - - Gandhi, 2002

1200 1349.39±6.33 S S Wakchaure et al., 2008

249 1307.18±12.39 S S Gupta, 2009

560 1309.97±25.92 S NS Nawale, 2010

707 1364.43 ±3.95 S NS Patil, 2011

11

Table 6: Average performance and effect of period and season on first service period

Non genetic

Effect

N Mean ± S.E.

(days)

Period Season

References

205 230.80±19.74 S NS Jain and Taneja, 1982

392 281.50±8.65 - - Yadav et al., 1983

392 276.31±12.12 S NS Yadav and Rathi, 1983

100 266.17±16.80 - - Ramesh et al., 1988

149 262.90±22.48 - - Narasimharao and Sreemannarayana, 1994

100 143.96±5.85 S NS Dhara, 1994

465 143.41±3.97 S NS Nath, 1996

- 149.48±7.89 S NS Jain and Sadana, 1998

44 144.00 S - Rakshe, 2003

760 151.46±3.87 S NS Wakchaure et al., 2008

241 199.04±7.08 S S Chakraborty, 2008

241 208.23 ± 9.78 NS NS Gupta, 2009

547 178.05 ± 9.01 S S Nawale, 2010

585 161.65 ±4.60 NS S Patil, 2011

2.2 Genetic parameters

2.2.1 Heritability estimates of first lactation performance traits in Murrah Buffalo

Knowledge about the magnitude of heritability gives an indication about the scope for

affecting genetic improvement through selection or culling of animals. Heritability for First

lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah Buffalo ranged from 0.046±0.136 (El-Arian,

12

1986) to 0.65 ± 0.12 (Wakchaure et al., 2008) (Table 7). Heritability for First lactation

monthly test day milk yield in Murrah buffalo varied from 0.33 on 275 DIM to 0.59 on 5

DIM (Geetha et al., 2007) (Table 8). Heritability for First lactation daily milk yield in Murrah

Buffalo as available in literature ranged from -0.097 ± 0.124 (El-Arian, 1986) to 0.39 ± 0.12

(Sharma, 1982) (Table 9). The estimate of heritability for first lactation length ranged

between -0.340 ± 0.09 (Gurnani et al., 1972) to 0.28 ± 0.11 (Dhara, 1994) (Table 10) in

Murrah buffalo. Heritability for age at first calving in Murrah buffalo ranged between

0.02±0.08 (Nath, 1996) and 0.62 ± 0.29 (Tein and Tripathi, 1990) (Table 11). Heritability

estimate for first service period ranged from –0.21± 0.13 (Sahana, 1993) to 0.39± 0.240

(Gajbhiye, 1987) (Table 12).

Table 7: Heritability estimate for first lactation 305-days milk yield in Murrah buffalo

No. of

observation

Method of

estimation

Mean ± S.E. References

- PHS 0.05 ± 0.14 El-Arian, 1986

825 ,, 0.12 ± 0.17 Tein and Tripathi, 1990

- ,, 0.02 ± 0.05 Ipe and Nagarcenkar, 1992

424 ,, 0.27 ± 0.16 Sahana, 1993

690 ,, 0.43 ± 0.19 Dhara, 1994

316 ,, 0.38 ± 0.18 Dass, 1995

- ,, 0.15 ± 0.09 Nath, 1996

- ,, 0.18 ± 0.07 Kumar et al., 2002

1161 ,, 0.65 ± 0.12 Wakchaure et al., 2008

248 ,, 0.33 ± 0.16 Gupta, 2009

Table 8: Heritability estimate for monthly first lactation test day milk yield in Murrah

buffalo

Heritability estimate References

0.33 – 0.59 Geetha et al., 2007

0.28 – 0.47 Katneni, 2007

13

Table 9: Heritability estimate for average first lactation daily milk yield in Murrah

No. of

observation

Method of

estimation


1470 PHS 0.37 ± 0.09 Basavaiah, 1978

804 ,, 0.39 ± 0.12 Sharma, 1982

1144 ,, 0.27 ± 0.08 Kumar, 1984

210 ,, -0.09 ± 0.12 El Arian, 1986

1024 ,, 0.07 ± 0.04 Singh and Yadav, 1987

343 ,, 0.06 ± 0.10 Gajbhiye, 1987

316 ,, 0.28 ± 0.21 Sahana, 1993

- ,, -0.01 ± 0.09 Nath, 1996

Table 10: Heritability estimate for first lactation length in Murrah buffalo

No. of

observation

Method of

estimation


716 PHS 0.15 ± 0.11 Raheja, 1992

424 ,, 0.21 ± 0.16 Sahana, 1993

683 ,, 0.28 ± 0.11 Dhara, 1994

316 ,, 0.05 ± 0.13 Dass, 1995

- ,, -0.03 ± 0.09 Nath, 1996

1161 ,, 0.09 ± 0.07 Wakchaure et al., 2008

248 ,, 0.27 ± 0.17 Gupta, 2009

14

Table 11: Heritability estimate for age at first calving in Murrah buffalo

No. of

observation

Method of

estimation


825 PHS 0.62 ± 0.29 Tein and Tripathi, 1990

- ,, 0.58 ± 0.20 Sahana, 1993

701 ,, 0.03 ± 0.14 Dhara, 1994

316 ,, 0.42 ± 0.09 Dass, 1995

- ,, 0.02 ± 0.08 Nath, 1996

- ,, 0.09 ± 0.06 Kumar et al., 2002

1200 ,, 0.33 ± 0.09 Wakchaure et al., 2008

249 ,, 0.14 ± 0.04 Gupta, 2009

Table 12: Heritability estimate for first service period in Murrah buffalo

No. of

observation

Method of

estimation


1044 PHS 0.11 ± 0.08 Johri and Bhat, 1979

804 ,, 0.07 ± 0.09 Sharma, 1982

215 ,, 0.18 ± 0.11 Chourasia et al., 1985

210 ,, 0.27 ± 0.20 El Arian, 1986

189 ,, 0.39 ± 0.24 Gajbhiye, 1987

716 REML 0.06 ± 0.00 Raheja, 1992

310 PHS -0.21 ± 0.13 Sahana, 1993

465 ,, -0.06 ± 0.13 Dhara, 1994

- ,, -0.07 ± 0.09 Nath, 1996

248 ,, 0.04 ± 0.23 Gupta, 2009

2.2.2 Phenotypic and genetic correlations

Genetic correlation gives an idea about the nature and magnitude of the relationship

between two traits. The knowledge of genetic correlation is useful in formulating a breeding

programme because it determines the direction and magnitude of genetic improvement in

other traits (correlared response) when selection is based on any of these traits. Geetha (2005)

15

reported that the genetic correlations among TDMY with 305MY ranged between 0.25 to

1.00. Rana (2008) reported that the genetic correlations among cumulative TDMY and

305MY were close to unity. Phenotypic and genetic correlations among various other first

lactations economic traits as reported in literature have been presented in (Table13 and 14).

Table 13: Genetic and phenotypic correlations between first lactation 305-days or less

milk yield with other traits in Murrah buffalo

rg ± S.E. rp ± S.E. References

AFC 0.21 ± 1.25 0.25 ± 0.09** Nath, 1996

AFC NE 0.08 Banik, 2001

AFC NE 0.22 ± 0.87 Gupta, 2009

FLDMY NE 0.77 ± 0.03 Gajbhiye, 1987

FLDMY - 0.33 ± 0.42** 0.97 ± 0.01* Sahana, 1993

FLL 0.236± 1.119 0.544 ± 0.06** El-Arian, 1986

FLL NE 0. 70 Banik, 2001

FLL NE 0.73 ± 0.05** Gupta, 2009

FSP NE 0.24 Banik, 2001

FSP -0.37 ± 1.67 0.35 ± 0.75 Gupta, 2009

16

Table 14: Genetic and phenotypic correlations between AFC with other traits in

Murrah buffalo

rg ± S.E. rp ± S.E. References

305MY 0.56 ± 0.22** 0.11 ± 0.05* Sahana, 1993

305MY 0.29 ± 0.87 0.15 ± 0.03** Gupta, 2009

FLDML NE 0.11 ± 0.05* Gajbhiye, 1987

FLDML 0.79 ± 0.13** 0.08 ± 0.05 Sahana, 1993

FLL 0.61 ± 0.23** 0.08 ± 0.03** Sahana, 1993

FLL -0.51 ± 0.87 0.11 ± 0.75 Gupta, 2009

FSP - - 0.05 ± 0.05 Sahana, 1993

FSP -0.06 ± 1.50 0.11 ± 0.05 Nath, 1996

FSP - 0.06 ± 0.07 Gupta, 2009

2.3 Genetic gain

Alim (1953) reported the genetic gain for milk yield through selection of dams of

future buffalo heifers and future buffalo bulls as 5.66 and 13.42 kg, respectively. The

generation interval through all four paths of genetic transmission was 27 years and annual

expected genetic gain in milk yield was only 0.71 kg (i.e. 0.04 per cent of herd average).

Sharma et al., (1982) analyzed the economic and breeding records of 804 Murrah buffaloes

from eight farms in northern India by least-squares technique. The expected genetic

improvement per generation for first lactation milk yield was 51.43 kg. Parmar and Dev

(1985) showed that maximum genetic gain of 193.9 liters per generation when test was based

on 8 daughers per bull and 2 out of 15 tested bulls were selected. Chakravarty and Rathi

(1986) analyzed the data during 1965 to 1977 on 269 daughters of 40 Murrah bulls. The

annual expected genetic gain in first lactation milk yield was 1.94 per cent through progeny

testing.

17

In N.D.R.I. Murrah herd, set-wise expected genetic gain per generation and per year

were estimated using average daughters first lactation 305-days milk yield of proven bulls

and average first lactation 305-days milk yield of all daughters. The set-wise expected genetic

gain per generation and per year varied from 61.69 kg and 10.29 kg in first set to 138.63 kg

and 27.95 kg in seventh set, with overall 102.67 kg/generation and 20.61 kg/year,

respectively. The genetic gain under the PT program varied from 0.61% in first set to 1.56%

in seventh set with overall 1.17% of the herd average.

2.4 Methods of Sire evaluation

The available literature on various sires evaluation methods viz., Contemporary

comparison method, least-squares analysis, simple regressed least-squares and best linear

unbiased prediction (BLUP) as reported by different workers has been reviewed as under:

2.4.1 Contemporary Comparison Method

Robertson and Rendel (1954) proposed the contemporary comparison method to

reduce the biases in simple daughter average. Contemporaries of the daughters of a sire are

the daughters of other sires in the same year and same herd, exposed to similar type of

environmental variation as the daughters of the sire under evaluation. They reported an index

(I) = A + (D- CD) where A was population mean, D is the average of daughters record and

CD is the average of contemporary daughters. This method was found satisfactory and had

been adapted to a variety of conditions in different countries for sire evaluation.

Johnson and Corley (1961) reviewed various progeny testing methods in Europe. In

Germany, the yield of each individual cow was expressed in percent of contemporary herd

average and relative yield of daughters were compared to that of their dams. In Britain, the

first lactation records of daughters of bulls were compared to those of their stable mates of

same age, the difference in such herds were weighted according to the number of daughters

and stable mates.

Searle (1963) reported that the efficiency of genetic merit of sire depends upon the

number of daughters available and the heritability of the trait under consideration. He

concluded that the amount of information about the son's true merit contained in sire progeny

test was given by the correlation between son's merit and sire's progeny test and was ½ √½ β

18

where, β = 2nh2 / [4 + (n-1) h

2], n being the number of daughters and h

2 is the heritability of

the trait under study.

In India, Sundaresan et al. (1965a) reported the sire index for first lactation 305- days

or less milk yield and age at first calving of 30 Tharparkar and 18 Sahiwal bulls. They used

the index as I = A + [n/ (n+k)] (D-CD), where, k = σe2

/ σs2, which was replaced by 12 and 6

for milk production and age at first calving, respectively. This index was reported to be more

accurate in Indian conditions to estimate the transmitting ability of sires.

Later, Sundaresan et al. (1965b) reported further improvement of the above index and

proposed the index as I = A + [n / (n+ 12)] [(D-CD)-b (M-CM)]. Where, A is breed average,

CM is contemporary dam's average and the other notations are same as already described.

Jain and Malhotra (1971) proposed a little modification of Sundaresan's index (1965a,

b). The daughter's deviation (D - CD) was adjusted for dam's production level and then

multiplied by the regression factor (n/ (n+k) in general and by n/ (n+12) for a heritability

estimate of 0.30. They also mentioned that multiplication by n/(n+k) would estimate the

transmitting ability and therefore, for estimation of breeding value the adjusted daughters

deviation should be multiplied by 2n/(n+12) because breeding value is defined as twice the

transmitting ability. Thus they proposed two indices as I = A+ ½ h2Q (D-CD) and II = A+½

h2Q [(D-CD)-b (M-CM)] to overcome the problems of Sundaresan's index, where, Q = n/ [1 +

(n-1) 0.25h2] and A is herd average.

VanVleck (1987) suggested the use of contemporary groups to remove biases from

genetic evaluation due to differential effects such as different managemental practices

associated with the grouping. The prediction error variance can be increased if there are

numerous groups with small number of records per subclasses. He discussed the mean square

(bias squared plus prediction error variance) may be more meaningful than the bias alone or

prediction error variance.

The contemporary comparison indices proposed by Sundaresan et al. (1965 a, b) and

Jain and Malhotra (1971) have been widely used for estimation of breeding value of bulls

under Indian conditions.

2.4.2 Least-Squares Method

Robertson and Rendel (1954) initially proposed the least-squares procedure for

determining the genetic worth of sires. The procedure was based on the principle to minimize

the error variance after adjusting the data for various non-genetic or environmental factors.

19

Cunningham (1965) described the method for obtaining weighted least-squares

estimates of sires based on non-orthogonal data of progeny test records, where AI was

practiced. He reported that it was possible to classify the sires into different groups much

earlier in the young age before the proofs were completed.

Harvey (1987) gave the concept of least-squares analysis for non-orthogonal data. By

incorporating sire as a random effect in the model of least-squares analysis, the effect of sire

can be determined for their genetic merit for effective sire evaluation. The least-squares

analysis for estimation of breeding value of sires has widely been used in India by different

workers.

Tajane and Rai (1990) used least-squares method for estimation of breeding value of

29 Holstein-Friesian sires and 8 Sahiwal sires based on their 1257 (Holstein-Friesian X

Sahiwal) and 519 (Sahiwal X Holstein-Friesian) daughters. Gandhi and Gurnani (1991)

estimated breeding value of Sahiwal sires on the basis of first lactation 305-days or less milk

yield of Sahiwal daughters maintained at five farms by least-squares technique. Singh et al.

(1992) used the least-squares method for estimation of breeding values of Hariana bulls.

Raheja (1992) used least-squares method for estimating the breeding value of Sahiwal

sires. Parekh et al. (1994) evaluated Friesian, Jersey and Brown Swiss sires based on least-

squares method.

Banik (2004) used LSM along with other methods (Contemporary comparison

method, SRLS, BLUP and REML) for evaluation of Sahiwal sires and reported highly

significant rank correlation of LSM with Contemporary comparison method (0.91), SRLS

(0.98), BLUP (0.85) and REML (0.96). This indicated that the ranking of sires by these

methods did not alter significantly.

Mukherjee et al. (2007) also used LSM along with other methods (Contemporary

comparison method, SRLS, BLUP and REML) for evaluation of Frieswal sires and reported

highly significant rank correlation of LSM with Contemporary comparison method (0.91),

BLUP (0.96) and REML (0.91). These indicate that ranking of sires by these methods did not

differ significantly.

The computational simplicity and readily available computer programs have made

this method very useful under Indian conditions.

2.4.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares (SRLS)

20

Harvey (1979) described the computational procedure for simple regressed least-

squares (SRLS) analysis for sire evaluation under mixed model. He reported SRLS estimates

of the sire effects are obtained by first imposing appropriate restrictions on the least-squares

set of equations and then regressing the least-squares estimates of sire effects.

Several workers in India have utilized this SRLS model for estimating sire merit.

Tajane and Rai (1990); Gandhi and Gurnani (1991) and Singh et al., (1992) estimated

breeding value of Holstein-Friesian and Sahiwal; Sahiwal and Hariana Sires, respectively,

based on SRLS method. Raheja (1992) estimated breeding value of Sahiwal sires based on

SRLS method. Parekh et al., (1994) utilized SRLS for estimation of sire merit and found that

this method was most accurate with the highest correlation (0.49 - 0.71) between estimated

effect and rank of the sires. Banik (2004) and Mukherjee et al. (2007) also used SRLS along

with other methods (BLUP, LSM, REML) for estimation of breeding values in Sahiwal and

Frieswal bulls, respectively.

2.4.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP)

Henderson (1973, 1975a, b) gave the concept of best linear unbiased prediction

(BLUP) method for sire evaluation for mixed model equations. The method combines the

feature of least-squares and selection index techniques and was reported to be most powerful

and flexible (Henderson, 1974). The BLUP method is unbiased and gives the predicted value

nearly equal to expected value of sires with minimum error variance. The method is also easy

to modify if the condition changes. The availability of powerful software for BLUP helped its

worldwide acceptance for evaluation of genetic merit of sire. Henderson (1973, 1975a)

described various criteria that were desirable in a sire evaluation method. BLUP method has

the following desirable properties:

1. It is unbiased in the sense that the predictor has the same expectation as the unknown

variable that is known to be predicted (the predictand).

2. It minimizes the variance of error of prediction in the class of linear unbiased

predictors.

3. It maximizes the correlation between the predictor and the predictand in the class of

linear unbiased predictors.

4. When the distribution is multivariate normal:

a) It yields the maximum likelihood and the best linear unbiased estimators of the

conditional mean of predicted.

21

b) In the class of linear unbiased predictors, it maximizes the probability of

correct pair wise ranking.

Henderson (1975a, b) described the incorporation of numerator relationship matrix,

which had the benefit of increase in accuracy than earlier evaluation and accounting for

genetic and environmental trends.

Henderson (1976) extended the BLUP procedure for multiple traits and later on

Henderson and Quass (1976) derived methods of BLUP for estimating breeding value using

multiple traits utilizing individual's own records as well as large number of relatives of sires

with numerator relationship matrix. The records of the relatives are of greatest use when

heritabilities of the traits are low and in particular when the trait cannot be observed in the

individual, which is the candidate for selection. This was an extension of Henderson's single

trait model for evaluating genetic merit of sire.

2.5 Comparison of effectiveness of various methods of sire evaluation

Kabat and Zerneeki (1980) compared the breeding value of sires for milk yield and fat

percent determined by contemporary comparison with least-squares and maximum likelihood

method. They found the correlation of contemporary comparison with least-squares and

maximum likelihood methods' were 0.567 and 0.576, respectively for milk production; and

0.353 and 0.371, respectively for milk fat percent. The rank correlation between maximum

likelihood and least-squares estimates were 0.999 for both milk yield and fat percent.

Haggar and Dempfle (1981) compared four methods of sire evaluation viz.,

contemporary comparison, least-squares and two BLUP methods for Brown-Swiss bulls. The

correlation for the two repeat estimates of the breeding value of bulls were 0.76, 0.76, 0.83

and 0.80 for four methods, respectively, over sire groups and 0.74, 0.74, 0.80 and 0.78 within

sire group.

Gurnani and Nagarcenker (1982) compared Henderson's best linear unbiased

prediction (BLUP) with Robertson's contemporary comparison method of sire evaluation

using 28 Tharparkar sires having at least 10 daughters per sire. The simple correlation

coefficient and rank correlation between these two methods were estimated as 0.824 and

0.915, respectively. It was observed that the contemporary comparison was 68.84 per cent as

accurate as BLUP method for ranking sires on the basis of their breeding values. They further

reported that BLUP method could give higher error of approximation in analyzing the genetic

merit of sires. If the number of daughters per sire is small and thus it can give inaccurate

22

estimate of breeding value of sires. They suggested that contemporary comparison method

was adequate under Indian conditions.

Cordovi et al. (1986) estimated breeding value of 157 Holstein-Friesian bulls on the

basis of first lactation records of their daughters using' contemporary comparison, least-

squares and BLUP methods. On comparison, BLUP was found to be least accurate among all

the methods.

Gill and Parmar (1988) estimated breeding value of 11 Red Dane bulls on the basis of

first lactation 305-days milk yield of their Red Dane-Sahiwal crossbred daughters by using

daughters average, least-squares means and BLUP. The rank correlation amongst the three

methods were -0.51, -0.28 and 0.71 between daughter average and least-squares mean,

daughter average and BLUP and least-squares mean and BLUP, respectively. It was observed

that simple daughter average is the most inaccurate method for evaluation of sire's genetic

merit.

Kumar and Bhatnagar (1989) estimated the breeding value of 40 Karan Swiss sires

based on first lactation milk production records of 355 daughters by using 13 different

methods. It was concluded that contemporary comparison was the best method for estimating

genetic merit of sires with lowest error variance.

Tajane and Rai (1990) compared different methods of estimation of breeding value of

29 Holstein-Friesian sires and 8 Sahiwal sires based on their 1257 (Holstein-Friesian x

Sahiwal) and 519 (Sahiwal X Holstein Friesian) daughters. They utilized herd mate

comparison; index corrected for auxiliary traits, least-squares, simple regressed least- squares

and best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) methods and concluded that all the procedures

were almost similar for ranking sires of higher merit. It was further reported that least-squares

and index corrected for auxiliary traits had lower rank correlation with other methods. The

use of BLUP method with complete model including fixed effects of genetic groups and

random effects of sires for estimation of breeding value of sires was recommended.

Gandhi and Gurnani (1991) compared the breeding value of Sahiwal sires on the basis

of first lactation 305-days or less milk yield of 1500 Sahiwal daughters maintained at five

farms. They utilized twelve sire indices by four different methods. I1 to I6 were based on

unadjusted data and remaining (I7 to I12) was based on adjusted data for farms, periods and

both farms and periods. They utilized error variance, coefficient of determination, coefficient

of variation and rank correlation methods for estimating accuracy, efficiency and stability of

23

different indices. The indices based on simple daughter average and least-squares models

were found to be almost equivalent in their accuracy, efficiency and stability. The rank

correlations among different methods of sire evaluation were high (0.88 to 1.00) and

statistically highly significant (p < 0.01).

Raheja (1992) compared six methods of sire evaluation namely simple daughter

average, herd mate comparison, contemporary comparison, ordinary least-squares, regressed

least-squares and best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for Sahiwal cattle for milk

production based on 556 first lactation milk yield and observed that the rank correlation and

linear correlation coefficient among sires from different methods ranged from 0.46 to 0.86

and 0.48 to 0.94, respectively. It was recommended that BLUP method for estimation of

breeding value of sires was most accurate in comparison to other methods.

Sahana (1996) estimated the breeding value of 129 sires based on 1224 first lactation

performance of crossbred daughters of Holstein-Friesian bulls by simple daughter average,

contemporary comparison, least-squares, simple regressed least- squares and BLUP methods.

The contemporary comparison method was observed to have minimum error variance and

was reported to be the best method for sire evaluation under organized herds. The relative

efficiency of simple daughter average was lowest (13.17%) in comparison to contemporary

comparison method. The relative efficiency of least-squares, simple regressed least-squares

and BLUP methods to the contemporary comparison were 58.29, 58.34 and 54.81 per cent,

respectively. The rank correlation of contemporary comparison with other methods ranged

from 0.77 (simple regressed least-squares) to 0.85 (BLUP). All the rank correlations were

highly significant (p<0.01).

Jain and Sadana (2000) compared the efficiency of four sire evaluation methods

(simple daughter average, contemporary comparison, least-squares, and BLUP) and BLUP

method was found to have the highest efficiency.

Tailor et al. (2000) estimated breeding value of 41 Surti buffalo bulls based on first

lactation 305-days milk yield of 507 daughters by 5 sire evaluation methods viz., herd-mate

comparison, contemporary comparison, ordinary least-squares, regressed least-squares and

BLUP. The accuracy of sire evaluation was judged by the correlation between the actual

progeny average for each sire and the estimated breeding value of sires and by rank

correlations and coefficients of skewness and kurtosis. Herd-mate comparison and

contemporary comparison methods had high and significant rank correlations; their

24

correlations with least-squares and BLUP methods were moderate. The rank correlations for

two least-squares methods with true sire effects were close to 1 and that for BLUP was lower.

BLUP had a lower standard error than other methods. The least-squares and BLUP methods

had near perfect normal distribution. The accuracies of ordinary least-squares, regressed

least-squares, BLUP, contemporary comparison and herd-mate comparison were 0.99, 0.97,

0.63, 0.52 and 0.45, respectively. The ordinary least-squares method was found the most

accurate method of sire evaluation. They recommended that BLUP could be used for

evaluating the breeding value of sires.

Gaur et al. (2001) estimated the breeding value of Frieswal sires using simple

daughter's average, contemporary comparison, least-squares and BLUP procedures and

computed rank correlations among the values obtained in order to judge the efficiency of the

methods. All the rank correlations were greater than 0.86. Rank correlations among sire

breeding value estimated from BLUP, LS and CC procedures were near to 1.00 (0.96 to

0.97). They suggested that either of the methods employed in the study could be used for the

selection of sires for breeding purpose.

Banik (2004) reported that the error variance of the LS was less than the BLUP

method of sire evaluation in Sahiwal cattle. The relative efficiency of BLUP in comparison to

LS was 0.97. However, the BLUP method of sire evaluation was more stable than LS

because of closeness of its coefficient of variation with unadjusted data of first lactation milk

yield. As regards accuracy of sire evaluation, the BLUP (R2

= 24.54%) method was found to

be more accurate than LS (R2

= 11.07%) based on coefficient of determination (R2).

Singh (2006) reported that the rank correlations between estimated breeding values

(EBVs) for the first lactation 305-days or less milk yield by least-squares and BLUP were the

highest (0.939 ± 0.001) followed by between SDA and BLUP (0.686 ± 0.001). The rank

correlations of CC and LS with SDA had relatively lower estimates (0.444 and 0.539). The

rank correlations of LS and BLUP with CC were found to be negative, though of lower

magnitude. The results revealed a wide variation in the ranking of EBVs by CC in

comparison to LS and BLUP. It can be inferred from these results that LS and BLUP

methods could be used with greater reliability for evaluation of sires.

Mukherjee et al. (2007) reported that the error variance of the LS was slightly more

than the BLUP method of sire evaluation in Frieswal cattle. The relative efficiency of LS in

comparison to BLUP was 0.999.

25

Rana (2008) reported that the rank correlations between estimated breeding values

(EBVs) for the first lactation 305-days or less milk yield by least-squares and BLUP were the

highest (0.939 ± 0.001) followed by between SDA and BLUP (0.686 ± 0.001). The rank

correlations of CC and LS with SDA had relatively lower estimates (0.444 and 0.539). The

rank correlations of LS and BLUP with CC were found to be negative, though of lower

magnitude. The results revealed a wide variation in the ranking of EBVs by CC in

comparison to LS and BLUP. It can be inferred from these results that LS and BLUP

methods could be used with greater reliability for evaluation of sires. The error variance of

LS method in 305-days milk yield and predicted 305-days milk yield by ratio and regression

methods, using part lactation and 305-days milk yields had lower error variance than the

BLUP. Thus, on the basis of error variance the LS was considered more efficient than BLUP

method. The R2 value of the LS was relatively higher than the BLUP in case of actual 305-

days milk yield. Therefore, the LS was considered more accurate than BLUP.

From the above literature reviewed on comparison of different sire evaluation methods

by different workers, it could be inferred based on relative efficiency, rank correlations and

accuracy that BLUP, LS and CC are comparable and either of the methods can give fairly

accurate rankings of sires. However, the BLUP seemed to have an edge over other methods

because of having higher efficiency and accuracy of estimated breeding values.

2.6 Impact Analysis of Network Project on Buffalo Improvement

Network Project on Buffalo though started in 1993 however no study has been

conducted on impact analysis related to various traits and genetic gain for milk production

over the sets in different farms.

26

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Source of Data

In the proposed study breeding information spread over a period of 14 years from

1995 to 2008, was collected from the history-cum-pedigree sheets and milk yield registers of

Murrah buffalo maintained in four centres of Network Project on Murrah Buffalo

Improvement. Information from Set I to Set VII was collected from NDRI, Karnal; CIRB,

Hisar and GADVASU, Ludhiana. Information of Set VI and Set VII was collected from

CCSHAU, Hisar as the centre has been included later on in the project.

3.2 Location of Centres/Farms and Climatic conditions

The National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal is located at an altitude of 250

meters above the mean sea level in the alluvial plains on 29°42’ N latitude and

77°02’E longitude. Four centres/farms were considered for this study. These farms

are located within 200 Km diameter from NDRI, Karnal. The climate of the region is

subtropical in nature. The minimum temperature falls near to freezing point in

winter months whereas the maximum temperature goes as high as 45°C in summer.

The annual rainfall ranges between 700 mm and 1000 mm and most of the rainfall is

received during the month of July and August. The relative humidity ranges from 40

per cent to a high of 85 per cent.

3.3 Basic Information

The following basic information was collected for the identification of Murrah buffaloes.

1. Buffalo number

2. Sire number

3. Dam number

4. Date of birth

5. Date of calving

6. Date of successful insemination

3.4 Traits considered for the study

3.4.1 Traits recorded:

1. First lactation 305-days or less lactation milk yield (kg) - 305MY

27

2. First lactation monthly test day milk yield (kg) - TDMY

3. First lactation length (days) - FLL

3.4.2 Traits generated:

1. Age at first calving (months) - AFC

2. First service period (days) - FSP

3. Wet average (kg) – WA i.e., average per day milk yield per buffalo in first lactation

3.5 Standardization of Records:

The records of the buffaloes with normal lactation were considered for this study. Buffaloes

with less than 500 kg of first lactation milk production or less than 100 days of first lactation

length were discarded. To ensure the normal distribution of records, the outliers were

removed and data within the range of Mean ± 3SD was only considered for the study.

3.6 Classification of data:

The data was classified according to the year of calving, season of calving and centre/farm.

3.6.1 Year of Calving:

Due to the changes in feeding and management practices over the particular time interval,

there might be variation in the expression of different traits of animals in different periods of

calving in the farm(s). Therefore the entire period of study (14 years) was classified into

fourteen years.

3.6.2 Season of Calving:

Season is an environmental factor that may influence the expression of performance traits in

buffaloes because of wide variation of climatic condition throughout the year. Two seasons of

calving was considered for the present study such as:

1. Least calving season: January to June

2. Most calving season: July to December

3.6.3 Centre/Farm

All information was classified in four centres/farms from where it was taken.

1. NDRI

2. CIRB

3. GADVASU

4. CCSHAU

28

3.7 Statistical Analysis

3.7.1 Measure of Central Tendency and Dispersion:

Means, standard deviations, standard errors and coefficients of variations of the traits

was estimated as per statistical procedures given by Snedecor and Cochran (1994).

3.7.2 Least-Squares Analysis for adjustment of data

The effect of fixed effects such as year, season and centre/farm on various traits was

studied by least-squares analysis using the technique described by Harvey (1966). The model

used was

Yijkl = µµµµ + Pi + Sj + Fk + eijkl

where,

Yijkl = lth

observation in Kth

farm, jth

season and ith

year of calving

µ = Overall mean

Pi = Effect of ith

year of calving ( i = 1 to 14 )

Sj = Effect of jth

Season of calving ( j = 1 and 2 )

Fk = Effect of kth

farm ( l = 1 to 4 )

eijkl = Random error ~NID ( 0, σ2e )

3.7.3 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT)

The statistical significance of various fixed effects in the least-squares models was

determined by ‘F’ test. For significant effects, the differences between two subclasses of each

effect was tested by DMRT as modified by Kramer (1957). The difference between any two

subclasses of each effect was considered significant, if

(Yi – Yj) (2/Cii + C

jj – 2C

ij) > σe Zp, ne

where,

(Yi – Yj) = Differences between means of two subclasses

Cii = Corresponding diagonal element (ii) of C matrix

Cjj = Corresponding diagonal element (jj) of C matrix

Cij = Off diagonal element (ij) of C matrix

σ e = √MSe

29

Zp, ne = Studentized Significant Ranged value of 5% and 1% level of

probabality at error (ne) degree of freedom

Prior to estimation of genetic parameters, the various traits were adjusted for different

significant non-genetic factors (year, season and farm).

3.7.4 Estimation of Heritability

Paternal half-sib correlation method (Becker, 1975) was used to estimate the

heritability of different traits and their genetic correlations. The sires with five or more than

five progeny were included for the estimation of heritability of traits. The following model

was used to estimate the heritability:

Yij = µµµµ + si + eij

where,

Yij = Observation of the jth

progeny of the ith

sire

µ = Overall mean

si = Effect of the ith

sire

eij = Random error ~NID (0, σ2e)

Analysis of variance

Source d.f. M.S.S. E.M.S.

Between sires S -1 MSS Σ2e + k σ2

s

Within sires N –S MSe σ2e

where,

σ2e = MSe = Mean sum of squares due to error

MSS - MSe σ2

s = Sire component of variance = ----------------- K

1 Σni2

K = Average number of progeny per sire = ------ ( N - ------ ) (S-1) N σ2

s t = -------------- σ2

s + σ2e

h2 = 4t

The standard error of heritability of the trait was estimated as suggested by Swiger et.

al. (1964).

30

[2 (N – 1) (1 -t) 2

{1 + (K-1) t} 2

] S.E. (h

2) = 4

_______________________________________

[K2 (N - S) (S - 1)]

where,

N = Number of observations

S = Number of sires

3.7.5 Genetic and Phenotypic Correlations

The genetic and phenotypic correlations were calculated from the analysis of variance

and covariance among sire groups as given by Becker (1975).

3.7.5.1 Genetic Correlations rg (xy)

The genetic correlation between two traits was estimated as:

CovS (x, y) rg (x, y) =

___________________

[σ2

s(x). σ2

s(y)] where,

x, y = Two different traits

Cov S (x, y) = Sire components of covariance between traits x and y

σ2

s (x) = Sire component of variance of trait x

σ2

s (y) = Sire component of variance of trait y

The standard error of genetic correlation was estimated by using the formula

(1 – rg2) S.E. (hx

2). S.E. (hy

2)

S.E. (rg) = ___________

__________________________

2 (hx

2). (hy

2)

where,

h2

x and h2

y are the heritability estimates of the two traits x and y

3.7.5.2 Phenotypic Correlation (rp)

The phenotypic correlation between two traits was estimated as:

CovS (x, y) + Cove (x, y) rP (x, y) =

________________________________________

[σS2(x) + σe

2(x)] [σS

2(y) + σe

2(y)]

where,

Cov S (x, y) = Sire component of phenotypic covariance between traits x and y

Cov e (x, y) = Error component of phenotypic covariance between traits x and y

σ2

S (x) = Sire component of variance for trait x

σ2

S (y) = Sire component of variance for trait y

31

σ2e (x) = Error component of variance for trait x

σ2e (y) = Error component of variance for trait

The standard error of phenotypic correlations was obtained according to formula

given by Snedecor and Cochran (1994).

[1 – rp2(x, y)]

S.E. (rp) = _______________

(N - 2) where,

r P (x,y) = Phenotypic correlation between the traits x and y

N – 2 = Degree of freedom.

3.8 Estimation of Expected Genetic Gain for 305MY / 305WA

3.8.1 Expected Genetic gain per generation

∆G = h2 . S

3.8.2 Expected Genetic gain per year

∆G = ( h2 . S ) / GI

where,

∆G – Expected Genetic gain

S – Selection differential

h2 – heritability of the trait

GI - Generation interval

3.9 Genetic Evaluation of Murrah bulls

3.9.1 Contemporary Comparison Method

The contemporary comparison method is one of the acceptable method and has been

adopted for evaluation of bulls under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement. Adjustment

for variability in daughter’s performance for different sires can be taken care of by

contemporary comparison method. The contemporary of a buffalo is considered to be the

daughter of the other sire calved at the same time period in the same herd or different herds.

The Contemporary Comparison method as modified by Sundaresan et al. (1965a) was used as

follows:

n

I = H + ----------- ( D - CD )

32

n + 12

where,

I Sire index / BV of the sire

H Herd Average

n Number of daughters of the sire

D Average performance of trait of daughters’ of the sire

CD Average performance of trait of contemporary daughters

3.9.2 Least-Squares Method

In this method, means of each sire was estimated by adjusting the trait for significant

effect of non-genetic factors. The least-squares method (Harvey, 1979) was used to estimate

the breeding value of bulls.

Yij = µµµµ + si + eij

where,

Yij = 305-days or less first lactation milk yield of the daughter of Ith

sire

µ = Population mean

sj = Effect of the ith

sire

eij = Random error ~NID (0, σe2)

Index (I) of ith

sire was estimated by following formula:

I = µµµµ + si

where,

I = Index of ith

sire

µ = Population mean

si =Least-squares constant of ith

sire

3.9.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares (SRLS) Method

The simple regressed least-squares (SRLS) method was applied as given by Harvey

(1979) using the model as described below:

Vs Si = ---------------------------- Si

[ Vs + Aii Ve]

33

where,

iS = Simplified regressed least-squares estimate of ith

sire

Aii

= Diagonal element of inverse of coefficient matrix of ith

sire

Vs = Least-squares variance component for sire

Ve = Least-squares variance component for error

^

iS = Least-squares constant for the ith

sire

The index (I) or breeding value of ith

sire was estimated by the following formula:

Breeding value of ith

sire = µ + iS

3.9.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) Method

The breeding value of sires was estimated by best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) method

as given by Henderson (1975).

The model of BLUP estimation was considered as follows:

Y= Xb +Za + e

where,

Y, b, a and e denotes the vector of observations (305MY / 305WA / TDMY), fixed effects,

random effect (sire effect) and random error and X and Z are incidence matrices pertaining to

fixed effects and random effects and,

V (e) = I . σe2 = R, V (s) = A . σs

2 = G, V = z G z’ + R

The assumptions of the model are:

1. Sires are unrelated, and

2. Error is common for all sires

From the above model the Mixed Model Equations was as follows.

X’ X X’ Z b X’ Y

=

Z’ X Z’ Z + G -1 a Z’ Y

where, G-1

is the diagonal matrix with each diagonal element as σe2/ σs

2 pertaining to sire

effect, σe2

is the error component and σs2

is the sire component of variance. Mixed

34

model BLUP equations were derived and solved to predict the breeding value of

sires i.e., Expected Breeding Values (EBV) of sires.

3.10 Effectiveness of various sire evaluation methods

All the sires were ranked as per their breeding value for first lactation 305-days or less

milk yield, monthly test-day milk yield and wet average.

3.10.1 Spearman’s rank correlation

The rank correlations between the rankings of sires based on their breeding

values estimated by the different methods was tested by using Spearman rank

correlation method (Steel and Torrie, 1960) as:

r(s) = 1 - 6∑di2/n (n

2-1)

where,

r(s) = Spearman’s rank correlation

n = Number of sires

di = Difference between the ranking of a sire by the two methods

3.11 Impact Analysis of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement:

Network Project on buffalo Improvement was started in 1993. Breeding for genetic

improvement of Murrah buffaloes is continuing under Network Project on Buffalo

Improvement. In the past it was observed that performance of Murrah buffalo for different

production and reproduction traits varied in different centres working under Network Project

on Murrah buffalo Improvement. In some centres, the performances were found good for

some traits while in other centres performances of same traits were not found satisfactory,

though the semen of a set of bulls were used in all the centres. Under Network Project on

Buffalo Improvement, the target for different traits for Murrah breed had been given.

However, there is a need to assess the impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo

Improvement over the time in different centres so as to identify reasoning of variability of

traits. The impact study will also help in planning the distribution of inputs and resources in

different centres. This impact study will help to evaluate and monitor the progeny testing

programme more effectively under Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement.

35

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main aim of present study on Murrah buffalo was to evaluate first lactation traits,

effect of non-genetic factors and estimation of genetic parameters viz., heritability, genetic

and phenotypic correlations between different traits and to examine the effectiveness of test

day lactation milk records and wet average in evaluating the breeding value of Murrah sires

using different methods. Set-wise genetic gain under Network Project on Murrah buffalo was

also estimated. Further, the impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement in

terms of performance evaluation of various centres has been studied. Initially data on first

lactation traits of 901 Murrah buffaloes sired by 95 bulls, spread over a period of 14

years from 1995 to 2008, were collected from the history-cum-pedigree sheet and milk yield

registers of Murrah buffalo maintained in four centres of Network Project on Murrah buffalo

Improvement. But after data editing 832 Murrah buffaloes were used for estimating

breeding value of test bulls. Information from Set I to Set VII was collected from NDRI,

Karnal; CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU, Ludhiana. Information of Set VI and Set VII were

collected from CCSHAU, Hisar as the centre has been included later on in the project. In

order to get reliable genetic parameters the influence of various non-genetic factors on the

above traits has to be studied and the data have to be adjusted for significant non-genetic

factors. Keeping this in view, the results of the present investigation are presented and

discussed under the following headings:

4.1 Performance of various reproduction and production traits in Murrah

buffaloes

4.2 Factors affecting various reproduction and production traits in

Murrah buffaloes

4.3 Genetic and phenotypic parameters of various traits

4.4 Genetic gain estimation

4.5 Genetic evaluation of Murrah bulls

4.5 Impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo improvement

36

4.1 Performance of various reproduction and production traits in Murrah

buffaloes

4.1.1 Reproduction Traits

4.1.1.1 Age at first calving (AFC)

The overall average age at first calving of Murrah buffaloes was estimated as 44.14±

0.23 months with the coefficient of variation of 15.22% (Table-49). Centre-wise AFC for

NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 42.69± 0.35 months, 47.14± 0.36

months, 41.87± 0.47 months and 40.92 ± 1.22 months, respectively (Table-22, 30, 38 and

41). The estimated age at first calving was almost in conformity with the results obtained by

many workers (El-Arian, 1986; Kuralkar and Raheja, 1997; Sheoran et al. 2002; Wakchaure,

2007; Gupta, 2009; Nawale, 2010 and Patil, 2011). The lower age at first calving in Murrah

buffalo than the estimate obtained in the present study was 1293.59±10.35 to 1330.79 ± 07.42

days reported by Gurnani and Nagarcenkar (1977); Nath (1996) and Gajbhiye and Tripathi

(1999) whereas, the higher age at first calving of 1656.87 ± 31.26 to 1503.98 ± 28.22 days

were reported by many workers (Jain and Taneja, 1982; Yadav et al. 1983; Gogoi et al. 1985;

Vij and Tiwana, 1987; Hatwar and Chawla, 1988; Kandasamy et al. 1991; Gupta et al. 1994;

Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Sharma, 1996; Jain and Sadana, 1998; Kumar et al. 2000;

Chander, 2002 and Suresh et. al., 2004).

4.1.1.2 First service period (FSP)

The overall average first service period was estimated as 202.27 ± 5.36 days with the

coefficient of variation was obtained as high as 65.11% in Muraah buffaloes (Table-49).

Centre-wise FSP for NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 177.52±

13.81 days, 229.10± 9.63 days, 194± 10.86 days and 278 ± 92.83 days, respectively (Table-

22, 30, 38 and 41). The estimated first service period was almost similar with the results

obtained by Chakraborty (2008) and Gupta (2009). The lower estimate of first service period

than the present study was obtained by many workers (Reddy, 1980; Sharma, 1982; Prakash

et al. 1989; Kumar, 1984; Dhara, 1994; Nath, 1996; Jain and Sadana, 1998; Gajbhiye and

Tripathi, 1999; Kumar et al. 2000; Rakshe, 2003; Suresh et al. 2004; Wakchaure et al., 2008;

Nawale, 2010 and Patil, 2011) whereas, higher estimate of first service period obtained by

different workers (Jain and Taneja, 1982; Yadav et al. 1983; Yadav and Rathi, 1983, Ramesh

et al., 1988 and Narasimharao and Sreemannarayana, 1994) in Murrah buffaloes.

37

4.1.2 Production Traits

4.1.2.1. First lactation 305 days milk yield (305MY)

The overall average first lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah buffaloes

was estimated as 1775.39±17.17 kg. The coefficients of variation of first lactation 305 days

milk yield was observed as 27.89% in Murrah buffaloes (Table-49). Centre-wise 305MY for

NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 1777.52± 32.96 kg, 1663.58±

21.08 kg, 1931± 35.52 kg and 1994 ± 87.46 kg, respectively (Table-22, 30, 38 and 41). The

present estimate was close to values reported by Dass, (1995) and Patil, (2011) in Indian

buffaloes. The estimates ranging from 1600.00 kg to 1750.00 kg were reported by (Reddy

and Mishra, 1980; Rana et. al., 2002 and Gupta, 2009). The lower average first lactation 305-

days or less milk yield in Murrah buffaloes ranged from 1355.4 ± 18.96 kg (Sharma and

Singh, 1988) to 1964.00 ± 38.6 kg (El-Arian, 1986: Gajbhiye, 1987: Hatwar and Chawla,

1988; Tomar and Tripathi, 1988; Singh et al., 1990; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Dass and

Sharma, 1994; Jain, 1996; Nath, 1996; Saha, 1998 and Wakchaure, 2007).

4.1.2.2. First lactation total milk yield (TMY)

The overall average first lactation total milk yield in Murrah buffaloes was estimated

as 1947.08 ± 22.86 kg. The coefficient of variation of first lactation total milk yield was

observed as 33.86 % in Murrah buffaloes (Table-49). Centre-wise TMY for NDRI, CIRB,

GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 1958.10 ± 42.29 kg, 1795.64 ± 28.05 kg, 2150 ±

51.57 kg and 2209 ± 121.66 kg, respectively (Table-22, 30, 38 and 41).

4.1.2.3. First lactation 305 days wet average (305WA)

The overall average first lactation 305-days wet average in Murrah buffaloes was

estimated as 6.18 ± 0.05 kg. The coefficients of variation of first lactation 305 day wet

average was observed as 23.62 % in Murrah buffaloes (Table-49). Centre-wise 305WA for

NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 6.23 ± 0.09 kg, 5.77 ± 0.06 kg,

6.74 ± 0.11 kg and 6.81 ± 0.26 kg, respectively (Table-22, 30, 38 and 41).

4.1.2.4. First lactation overall wet average (305WA)

The average first lactation overall wet average in Murrah buffaloes was estimated as

5.87 ± 0.05 kg. The coefficient of variation of first lactation overall wet average was

observed as 22.66 % in Murrah buffaloes (Table-49). Centre-wise OWA for NDRI, CIRB,

38

GADVASU and CCSHAU was found to be 5.90 ± 0.09 kg, 5.56 ± 0.09 kg, 6.31 ± 0.11 kg

and 6.37 ± 0.20 kg, respectively (Table-22, 30, 38 and 41).

4.1.2.5. First lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY)

In the present study it was observed that minimum first lactation monthly test day

milk yield (TDMY) was found to be 4.22 ± 0.07 kg on test day 11 while maximum TDMY

was found as 7.47±0.07 kg on test day 3 (Table-49). The coefficients of variation of first

lactation monthly test day milk yield varied from 26.49 % to 42.73 % in first lactation.

Geetha (2005) and Katneni (2007) reported minimum first lactation monthly test day milk

yield (TDMY) was 3.91 ± 0.17 kg and 4.58 ± 0.11 kg on test day 11, while maximum first

lactation monthly test day milk yield was reported as 7.15 ± 0.15 kg and 8.05 ± 0.11 kg on

test day 3 (95th

day). Similar was the view of Kumar and Bhat (1978), Khosla et al. (1984),

El-Arain (1986) and Catillo et al. (2002). Patil (2011) reported minimum first lactation

monthly test day milk yield (TDMY) 4.18 ± 0.08 kg on test day 11 while maximum TDMY

was found as 8.06±0.09 kg on test day 3. The coefficients of variation of first lactation

monthly test day milk yield varied from 29.67 % to 57.66 % in first lactation.

Table 15: Means, standard deviation, standard errors and coefficients of variation of

reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set I.

Trait N Mean SD SE CV%

AFC 78 44.09 5.89 0.667 13.36

FSP 66 177.52 112.21 13.812 63.21

305MY 78 1720.50 553.43 62.664 32.17

TMY 78 1895.15 698.33 79.070 36.85

305 WA 78 5.98 1.56 0.177 26.09

OWA 78 5.65 1.38 0.156 24.42

TD1 (5DIM) 78 3.54 1.91 0.216 53.95

TD2 (35DIM) 78 7.10 2.10 0.238 29.58

TD3 (65DIM) 78 7.00 2.10 0.238 30.00

TD4 (95DIM) 78 7.07 2.08 0.236 29.42

TD5 (125DIM) 77 6.77 2.19 0.250 32.35

TD6 (155DIM) 77 6.45 1.87 0.213 28.99

TD7 (185DIM) 77 5.87 1.99 0.227 33.90

TD8 (215DIM) 72 5.81 1.89 0.714 32.53

TD9 (245DIM) 68 5.16 1.81 0.219 35.08

TD10 (275DIM) 54 4.67 1.71 0.233 36.62

39

TD11 (305DIM) 46 3.89 1.72 0.254 44.22

*Age at first calving, first service period and milk yields are in months, days and kg, respectively and

figures in parenthesis are days in milk (DIM).


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set II


AFC 36 44.52 5.67 0.945 12.74

FSP 29 176.90 114.90 21.336 64.95

305MY 36 1687 563.32 93.887 33.39

TMY 36 1792 652.79 108.798 36.43

305 WA 36 6.02 1.70 0.283 28.24

OWA 36 5.82 1.52 0.253 26.12

TD1 (5DIM) 35 5.48 2.65 0.448 48.36

TD2 (35DIM) 36 7.67 2.57 0.428 33.51

TD3 (65DIM) 36 7.62 2.08 0.347 27.30

TD4 (95DIM) 36 7.49 2.26 0.377 30.17

TD5 (125DIM) 36 7.24 2.08 0.347 28.73

TD6 (155DIM) 36 6.19 2.06 0.343 33.28

TD7 (185DIM) 36 5.50 2.37 0.395 43.09

TD8 (215DIM) 33 4.88 1.90 0.331 38.93

TD9 (245DIM) 30 4.15 1.81 0.330 43.61

TD10 (275DIM) 24 3.67 2.10 0.429 57.22

TD11 (305DIM) 17 2.91 1.95 0.473 67.01


figures in parenthesis are days in milk (DIM). **Difference in number of observation for TD1 and

TD2 is due to unavailability of TD1 records because of ill health of buffalo after calving or some

other reasons.

40


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set III


AFC 38 44.60 7.48 1.213 16.77

FSP 33 198.97 123.81 21.553 62.23

305MY 38 1557.32 465.81 75.564 29.91

TMY 38 1729.32 612.95 99.434 35.44

305 WA 38 5.59 1.29 0.209 23.08

OWA 38 5.29 1.20 0.195 22.68

TD1 (5DIM) 38 4.38 2.13 0.346 48.63

TD2 (35DIM) 38 6.87 2.00 0.324 29.11

TD3 (65DIM) 38 7.17 1.54 0.250 21.48

TD4 (95DIM) 38 6.70 1.67 0.271 24.93

TD5 (125DIM) 37 6.03 1.94 0.319 32.17

TD6 (155DIM) 36 5.99 1.63 0.272 27.21

TD7 (185DIM) 35 5.53 1.74 0.294 31.46

TD8 (215DIM) 34 5.06 1.72 0.295 33.99

TD9 (245DIM) 31 4.71 1.66 0.298 35.24

TD10 (275DIM) 28 3.91 1.46 0.276 37.34

TD11 (305DIM) 23 3.28 1.60 0.334 48.78



41


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set IV


AFC 26 45.20 4.92 0.965 10.88

FSP 22 260.18 189.57 40.416 72.86

305MY 28 1679.31 543.87 102.782 32.39

TMY 28 1925.92 833.83 157.579 43.30

305 WA 28 5.88 1.49 0.282 25.34

OWA 28 5.53 1.18 0.223 21.34

TD1 (5DIM) 28 4.29 2.07 0.391 48.25

TD2 (35DIM) 28 7.25 1.87 0.353 25.79

TD3 (65DIM) 28 7.37 1.28 0.242 17.37

TD4 (95DIM) 28 7.02 1.63 0.308 23.22

TD5 (125DIM) 28 6.27 2.15 0.406 34.29

TD6 (155DIM) 28 6.00 1.79 0.338 29.83

TD7 (185DIM) 27 5.94 2.54 0.489 42.76

TD8 (215DIM) 25 5.96 2.33 0.466 39.09

TD9 (245DIM) 23 5.10 2.34 0.488 45.88

TD10 (275DIM) 19 5.03 2.10 0.482 41.75

TD11 (305DIM) 17 4.60 1.51 0.366 32.83



42


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set V


AFC 56 41.08 5.91 0.790 14.39

FSP 50 160 109.45 15.479 68.41

305MY 58 1932.14 536.28 70.417 27.76

TMY 58 2100.47 709.31 93.137 33.77

305 WA 58 6.71 1.50 0.197 22.35

OWA 58 6.36 1.31 0.172 20.60

TD1 (5DIM) 58 4.94 1.85 0.243 37.45

TD2 (35DIM) 58 8.03 2.19 0.288 27.27

TD3 (65DIM) 58 8.09 2.07 0.272 25.59

TD4 (95DIM) 58 7.71 2.17 0.285 28.15

TD5 (125DIM) 58 7.74 2.12 0.278 27.39

TD6 (155DIM) 58 7.03 2.15 0.282 30.58

TD7 (185DIM) 57 6.18 2.01 0.266 32.52

TD8 (215DIM) 54 6.19 1.98 0.269 31.99

TD9 (245DIM) 51 5.16 2.12 0.297 41.09

TD10 (275DIM) 41 4.99 1.95 0.305 39.08

TD11 (305DIM) 33 4.39 1.83 0.319 41.69



43


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set VI


AFC 31 39.28 5.21 0.936 13.26

FSP 20 137.25 91.66 20.496 66.78

305MY 32 1952.75 589.22 104.160 30.17

TMY 32 2165.75 729.96 129.040 33.70

305 WA 32 6.72 1.74 0.308 25.89

OWA 32 6.42 1.67 0.295 26.01

TD1 (5DIM) 32 5.02 2.39 0.422 47.61

TD2 (35DIM) 32 8.45 2.11 0.373 24.97

TD3 (65DIM) 32 8.64 2.39 0.422 27.66

TD4 (95DIM) 32 8.05 2.34 0.414 29.07

TD5 (125DIM) 32 7.53 2.47 0.437 32.80

TD6 (155DIM) 32 7.09 2.34 0.414 33.00

TD7 (185DIM) 32 6.55 2.44 0.431 37.25

TD8 (215DIM) 29 5.90 2.04 0.379 34.58

TD9 (245DIM) 28 5.48 1.91 0.361 34.85

TD10 (275DIM) 27 4.85 1.91 0.368 39.38

TD11 (305DIM) 19 4.21 1.71 0.392 40.62



44


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for NDRI centre in Set VII


AFC 35 39.30 4.16 0.703 10.59

FSP 30 195.33 106.81 19.501 54.68

305MY 35 1899.17 685.78 115.918 36.11

TMY 35 2117.29 884.17 149.452 41.76

305 WA 35 6.72 2.00 0.338 29.76

OWA 35 6.30 1.80 0.304 28.57

TD1 (5DIM) 35 2.76 1.65 0.279 59.78

TD2 (35DIM) 35 7.68 2.26 0.382 29.43

TD3 (65DIM) 35 8.11 2.62 0.443 32.31

TD4 (95DIM) 35 7.66 2.72 0.460 35.51

TD5 (125DIM) 34 7.46 3.05 0.523 40.88

TD6 (155DIM) 33 7.18 2.69 0.468 37.47

TD7 (185DIM) 32 6.56 2.16 0.382 32.93

TD8 (215DIM) 31 6.23 2.18 0.392 34.99

TD9 (245DIM) 29 5.95 1.90 0.353 31.93

TD10 (275DIM) 26 5.48 1.70 0.333 31.02

TD11 (305DIM) 23 4.32 1.87 0.390 43.29



45


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using NDRI centre pooled

information.


AFC 300 42.69 6.11 0.353 14.31

FSP 250 182.96 122.12 7.724 66.75

305MY 305 1777.52 575.54 32.955 32.38

TMY 305 1958.10 738.65 42.295 37.72

305 WA 305 6.23 1.65 0.094 26.48

OWA 305 5.90 1.48 0.085 25.08

TD1 (5DIM) 302 4.27 2.20 0.127 51.52

TD2 (35DIM) 305 7.55 2.20 0.126 29.14

TD3 (65DIM) 305 7.64 2.13 0.122 27.88

TD4 (95DIM) 305 7.35 2.19 0.125 29.80

TD5 (125DIM) 302 7.02 2.34 0.135 33.33

TD6 (155DIM) 300 6.59 2.13 0.123 32.32

TD7 (185DIM) 296 6.00 2.14 0.124 35.67

TD8 (215DIM) 278 5.75 1.99 0.119 34.61

TD9 (245DIM) 260 5.12 1.96 0.122 38.28

TD10 (275DIM) 219 4.67 1.86 0.126 39.83

TD11 (305DIM) 178 3.98 1.78 0.133 44.72




other reasons.

46


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set I


AFC 18 53.58 4.07 0.959 7.60

FSP 13 208.46 121.60 33.726 58.33

305MY 18 1781.33 557.13 131.317 31.28

TMY 18 1924.33 685.19 161.501 35.61

305 WA 18 6.05 1.60 0.377 26.45

OWA 18 5.69 1.35 0.318 23.73

TD1 (5DIM) 11 4.80 1.91 0.576 39.79

TD2 (35DIM) 18 7.41 1.91 0.450 25.78

TD3 (65DIM) 18 7.62 1.87 0.441 24.54

TD4 (95DIM) 18 7.20 1.89 0.445 26.25

TD5 (125DIM) 18 6.91 2.16 0.509 31.26

TD6 (155DIM) 18 6.13 1.77 0.417 28.87

TD7 (185DIM) 18 5.47 2.05 0.483 37.48

TD8 (215DIM) 18 5.25 1.59 0.375 30.29

TD9 (245DIM) 18 4.52 1.62 0.382 35.84

TD10 (275DIM) 14 4.51 1.75 0.468 38.80

TD11 (305DIM) 11 4.43 1.28 0.386 28.89




other reasons.

47


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set II


AFC 35 44.70 7.40 1.251 16.55

FSP 31 207.52 118.46 21.276 57.08

305MY 35 1741.97 345.78 58.447 19.85

TMY 35 1815.63 426.90 72.159 23.51

305 WA 35 5.93 1.02 0.172 17.20

OWA 35 5.77 0.96 0.162 16.64

TD1 (5DIM) 27 4.64 1.01 0.194 21.77

TD2 (35DIM) 35 7.06 1.54 0.260 21.81

TD3 (65DIM) 35 7.60 1.46 0.247 19.21

TD4 (95DIM) 35 7.24 1.43 0.242 19.75

TD5 (125DIM) 35 6.73 1.43 0.242 21.25

TD6 (155DIM) 35 6.43 1.25 0.211 19.44

TD7 (185DIM) 35 6.09 1.37 0.232 22.50

TD8 (215DIM) 35 5.31 1.20 0.203 22.60

TD9 (245DIM) 33 4.78 1.42 0.247 29.71

TD10 (275DIM) 28 4.20 1.11 0.210 26.43

TD11 (305DIM) 20 3.71 1.15 0.257 31.00




other reasons.

48


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set III


AFC 51 47.25 6.11 0.856 12.93

FSP 42 231.26 135.95 20.978 58.79

305MY 51 1677.37 345.77 48.417 20.61

TMY 51 1814.02 441.44 61.814 24.33

305 WA 51 5.82 0.96 0.134 16.49

OWA 51 5.53 1.00 0.140 18.08

TD1 (5DIM) 29 4.62 0.99 0.184 21.43

TD2 (35DIM) 51 6.64 1.22 0.171 18.37

TD3 (65DIM) 51 6.88 1.13 0.158 16.42

TD4 (95DIM) 51 6.79 1.32 0.185 19.44

TD5 (125DIM) 51 6.25 1.11 0.155 17.76

TD6 (155DIM) 51 5.96 1.19 0.167 19.97

TD7 (185DIM) 48 5.68 1.13 0.163 19.89

TD8 (215DIM) 47 5.13 1.19 0.174 23.20

TD9 (245DIM) 43 4.89 0.91 0.139 18.61

TD10 (275DIM) 37 4.54 1.09 0.179 24.01

TD11 (305DIM) 31 4.18 0.96 0.172 22.97




other reasons.

49


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set IV


AFC 68 49.52 5.92 0.718 11.95

FSP 49 243.71 153.21 21.887 62.87

305MY 68 1698 421.78 51.148 24.84

TMY 68 1880 554.11 67.196 29.47

305 WA 68 5.92 1.17 0.142 19.76

OWA 68 5.69 1.11 0.135 19.51

TD1 (5DIM) 59 4.48 1.09 0.142 24.33

TD2 (35DIM) 68 6.84 1.54 0.187 22.51

TD3 (65DIM) 68 6.74 1.35 0.164 20.03

TD4 (95DIM) 68 6.68 1.32 0.160 19.76

TD5 (125DIM) 68 6.42 1.45 0.176 22.59

TD6 (155DIM) 68 6.18 1.53 0.186 24.76

TD7 (185DIM) 65 5.90 1.38 0.171 23.39

TD8 (215DIM) 64 5.60 1.28 0.160 22.86

TD9 (245DIM) 58 5.25 1.23 0.162 23.43

TD10 (275DIM) 52 4.65 1.28 0.178 27.53

TD11 (305DIM) 42 4.50 1.07 0.165 23.78




other reasons.

50


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set V


AFC 37 45.17 4.63 0.761 10.25

FSP 24 180.92 120 24.495 66.33

305MY 37 1539.49 376.92 61.965 24.48

TMY 37 1652.56 498.27 81.915 30.15

305 WA 37 5.39 1.01 0.166 18.74

OWA 37 5.23 0.96 0.158 18.36

TD1 (5DIM) 35 4.03 0.79 0.134 19.60

TD2 (35DIM) 37 5.99 1.30 0.214 21.70

TD3 (65DIM) 37 6.27 1.44 0.237 22.97

TD4 (95DIM) 37 6.07 1.21 0.199 19.93

TD5 (125DIM) 37 6.12 1.46 0.240 23.86

TD6 (155DIM) 37 5.40 1.27 0.209 23.52

TD7 (185DIM) 36 5.38 1.16 0.193 21.56

TD8 (215DIM) 32 5.30 1.15 0.203 21.70

TD9 (245DIM) 31 4.80 1.13 0.203 23.54

TD10 (275DIM) 30 4.49 1.23 0.225 27.39

TD11 (305DIM) 18 4.41 0.68 0.160 15.42




other reasons.

51


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set VI


AFC 57 46.68 6.43 0.852 13.77

FSP 26 254.35 164.25 32.212 64.58

305MY 57 1593.05 278.74 36.920 17.50

TMY 57 1673.26 338.56 44.843 20.23

305 WA 57 5.58 0.84 0.111 15.05

OWA 57 5.45 0.82 0.109 15.05

TD1 (5DIM) 56 4.75 1.16 0.155 24.42

TD2 (35DIM) 57 6.75 1.33 0.176 19.70

TD3 (65DIM) 57 6.73 1.21 0.160 17.98

TD4 (95DIM) 57 6.50 1.25 0.166 19.23

TD5 (125DIM) 57 6.36 1.10 0.146 17.30

TD6 (155DIM) 57 6.04 1.07 0.142 17.72

TD7 (185DIM) 56 5.63 1.05 0.140 18.65

TD8 (215DIM) 56 5.14 1.30 0.174 25.29

TD9 (245DIM) 52 4.75 1.20 0.166 25.26

TD10 (275DIM) 39 4.44 1.16 0.186 26.13

TD11 (305DIM) 27 4.12 1.05 0.202 25.49




other reasons.

52


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CIRB centre in Set VII


AFC 46 45.12 5.14 0.758 11.39

FSP 30 248.53 158.35 28.911 63.71

305MY 46 1678.17 368.99 54.405 21.99

TMY 46 1848.48 532.25 78.476 28.79

305 WA 46 5.83 1.07 0.158 18.35

OWA 46 5.60 1.34 0.198 23.93

TD1 (5DIM) 41 4.34 1.11 0.173 25.58

TD2 (35DIM) 46 6.86 1.26 0.186 18.37

TD3 (65DIM) 46 7.02 1.20 0.177 17.09

TD4 (95DIM) 46 6.61 1.33 0.196 20.12

TD5 (125DIM) 46 6.21 1.40 0.206 22.54

TD6 (155DIM) 46 6.22 1.20 0.177 19.29

TD7 (185DIM) 46 5.75 1.25 0.184 21.74

TD8 (215DIM) 44 5.33 1.20 0.181 22.51

TD9 (245DIM) 39 5.23 1.27 0.203 24.28

TD10 (275DIM) 34 4.88 1.10 0.189 22.54

TD11 (305DIM) 28 4.44 0.96 0.181 21.62




other reasons.

53


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using CIRB centre pooled

information


AFC 314 47.14 6.41 0.362 13.60

FSP 216 229.10 141.28 9.635 61.67

305MY 314 1663.58 372.87 21.076 22.41

TMY 314 1795.64 496.16 28.045 27.63

305 WA 314 5.77 1.07 0.060 18.54

OWA 314 5.56 1.02 0.058 18.35

TD1 (5DIM) 269 4.50 1.09 0.067 24.22

TD2 (35DIM) 314 6.75 1.43 0.081 21.19

TD3 (65DIM) 314 6.69 1.37 0.077 20.48

TD4 (95DIM) 314 6.67 1.37 0.077 20.54

TD5 (125DIM) 314 6.37 1.38 0.078 21.66

TD6 (155DIM) 313 6.06 1.32 0.075 21.78

TD7 (185DIM) 306 5.73 1.29 0.074 22.51

TD8 (215DIM) 298 5.32 1.25 0.073 23.50

TD9 (245DIM) 276 4.95 1.24 0.075 25.05

TD10 (275DIM) 236 4.56 1.22 0.080 26.75

TD11 (305DIM) 178 4.27 1.03 0.077 24.12




other reasons.

54


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set I


AFC 10 48.83 6.84 2.163 14.01

FSP 7 285 107.52 40.639 37.73

305MY 10 2183 380.27 120.252 17.42

TMY 10 2660 687.27 217.334 25.84

305 WA 10 7.25 1.15 0.364 15.86

OWA 10 6.26 0.79 0.250 12.62

TD1 (5DIM) 9 5.9 2.62 0.873 44.41

TD2 (35DIM) 10 8.6 1.93 0.610 22.44

TD3 (65DIM) 10 8.2 1.49 0.471 18.17

TD4 (95DIM) 10 8.5 2.08 0.658 24.47

TD5 (125DIM) 10 7.7 1.68 0.531 21.82

TD6 (155DIM) 10 7.2 1.40 0.443 19.44

TD7 (185DIM) 10 6.6 1.69 0.534 25.61

TD8 (215DIM) 10 6.0 1.77 0.560 29.50

TD9 (245DIM) 10 5.9 2.05 0.648 34.75

TD10 (275DIM) 10 5.4 1.45 0.459 26.85

TD11 (305DIM) 8 5.2 1.10 0.389 21.15




other reasons.

55


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set II


AFC 41 42.20 6.88 1.074 16.30

FSP 32 202 139.85 24.722 69.23

305MY 41 1943 433.27 67.665 22.30

TMY 41 2225 724.35 113.124 32.56

305 WA 41 6.67 1.54 0.241 23.09

OWA 41 6.13 1.50 0.234 24.47

TD1 (5DIM) 33 5.34 2.18 0.379 40.82

TD2 (35DIM) 41 8.00 2.23 0.348 27.88

TD3 (65DIM) 41 8.08 2.20 0.344 27.23

TD4 (95DIM) 41 7.82 1.93 0.301 24.68

TD5 (125DIM) 41 7.20 2.13 0.333 29.58

TD6 (155DIM) 41 6.80 1.59 0.248 23.38

TD7 (185DIM) 40 6.31 1.93 0.305 30.59

TD8 (215DIM) 38 5.63 1.63 0.264 28.95

TD9 (245DIM) 37 5.46 1.42 0.233 26.01

TD10 (275DIM) 36 4.33 1.85 0.308 42.73

TD11 (305DIM) 31 3.50 1.77 0.318 50.57




other reasons.

56


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set

III


AFC 17 43.25 5.32 1.290 12.30

FSP 13 202 146.97 40.762 72.76

305MY 17 2229 387.18 93.905 17.37

TMY 17 2449 604.79 146.683 24.70

305 WA 17 7.39 1.30 0.315 17.59

OWA 17 6.76 1.10 0.267 16.27

TD1 (5DIM) 15 5.82 1.81 0.467 31.10

TD2 (35DIM) 17 9.59 1.96 0.475 20.44

TD3 (65DIM) 17 9.01 2.20 0.534 24.42

TD4 (95DIM) 17 8.61 2.07 0.502 24.04

TD5 (125DIM) 17 8.77 1.51 0.366 17.22

TD6 (155DIM) 17 8.16 1.71 0.415 20.96

TD7 (185DIM) 17 7.15 1.62 0.393 22.66

TD8 (215DIM) 17 6.19 1.46 0.354 23.59

TD9 (245DIM) 17 6.33 1.40 0.340 22.12

TD10 (275DIM) 17 5.06 2.19 0.531 43.28

TD11 (305DIM) 13 4.94 1.97 0.546 39.88




other reasons.

57


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set IV


AFC 24 38.63 5.33 1.088 13.80

FSP 22 220 133.52 28.467 60.69

305MY 24 1870 401.73 82.003 21.48

TMY 24 2082 601.69 122.819 28.90

305 WA 24 6.84 1.13 0.231 16.52

OWA 24 6.01 1.16 0.237 19.30

TD1 (5DIM) 23 4.8 1.71 0.357 35.63

TD2 (35DIM) 24 8.1 2.14 0.437 26.42

TD3 (65DIM) 24 8.3 1.56 0.318 18.80

TD4 (95DIM) 24 7.5 1.39 0.284 18.53

TD5 (125DIM) 24 6.6 1.27 0.259 19.24

TD6 (155DIM) 24 6.4 1.29 0.263 20.16

TD7 (185DIM) 24 6.0 1.48 0.302 24.67

TD8 (215DIM) 23 5.5 1.84 0.384 33.45

TD9 (245DIM) 22 49 1.82 0.388 3.71

TD10 (275DIM) 18 4.5 1.40 0.330 31.11

TD11 (305DIM) 13 4.0 1.31 0.363 32.75




other reasons.

58


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set V


AFC 42 39.30 6.54 1.009 16.64

FSP 22 138 73.12 15.589 52.99

305MY 42 1767.69 589.78 91.005 33.36

TMY 42 1859 665.06 102.621 35.78

305 WA 42 6.46 1.77 0.273 27.40

OWA 42 6.26 1.76 0.272 28.12

TD1 (5DIM) 41 5.3 1.99 0.311 37.55

TD2 (35DIM) 42 7.5 2.09 0.322 27.87

TD3 (65DIM) 42 7.6 2.09 0.322 27.50

TD4 (95DIM) 42 7.3 2.06 0.318 28.22

TD5 (125DIM) 42 6.5 2.37 0.366 36.46

TD6 (155DIM) 40 6.6 2.40 0.379 36.36

TD7 (185DIM) 38 6.0 1.96 0.318 32.67

TD8 (215DIM) 36 5.4 1.98 0.330 36.67

TD9 (245DIM) 33 5.3 2.01 0.350 37.92

TD10 (275DIM) 26 4.8 1.66 0.326 34.58

TD11 (305DIM) 17 4.3 1.61 0.390 37.44




other reasons.

59


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set VI


AFC 32 43 5 0.884 11.63

FSP 24 188 121.32 24.764 64.53

305MY 32 2008 527.96 93.331 26.29

TMY 32 2308 838.53 148.233 36.33

305 WA 32 6.94 1.54 0.272 22.19

OWA 32 6.45 1.35 0.239 20.93

TD1 (5DIM) 31 5.70 1.75 0.314 30.70

TD2 (35DIM) 32 8.10 2.01 0.355 24.81

TD3 (65DIM) 32 8.0 2.08 0.368 26.00

TD4 (95DIM) 32 8.0 1.99 0.352 24.88

TD5 (125DIM) 32 7.5 2.07 0.366 27.60

TD6 (155DIM) 31 7.5 1.88 0.338 25.07

TD7 (185DIM) 31 6.5 1.94 0.348 29.85

TD8 (215DIM) 31 6.1 1.84 0.330 30.16

TD9 (245DIM) 30 5.2 1.43 0.261 27.50

TD10 (275DIM) 27 4.7 1.87 0.360 39.79

TD11 (305DIM) 22 4.9 1.64 0.350 33.47




other reasons.

60


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for GADVASU centre in Set

VII


AFC 22 43.85 5.25 1.119 11.97

FSP 22 180 120.15 25.616 66.75

305MY 22 1832 373.54 79.639 20.39

TMY 22 1944 491.33 104.752 25.27

305 WA 22 6.65 1.74 0.371 26.17

OWA 22 6.52 1.75 0.373 26.84

TD1 (5DIM) 22 5.5 1.55 0.330 28.18

TD2 (35DIM) 22 7.5 1.64 0.350 21.87

TD3 (65DIM) 22 8.2 1.83 0.390 22.32

TD4 (95DIM) 22 7.5 1.76 0.375 23.47

TD5 (125DIM) 22 7.0 1.53 0.326 21.86

TD6 (155DIM) 21 6.8 1.49 0.325 21.91

TD7 (185DIM) 21 6.2 1.53 0.334 24.68

TD8 (215DIM) 21 5.4 2.10 0.458 38.89

TD9 (245DIM) 19 5.1 1.68 0.385 32.94

TD10 (275DIM) 18 4.3 1.44 0.339 33.49

TD11 (305DIM) 7 4.0 1.55 0.586 38.75



61


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using GADVASU centre

pooled information


AFC 188 41.87 6.4 0.467 15.29

FSP 134 194 125.7 10.859 64.79

305MY 188 1931 487.1 35.525 25.23

TMY 188 2150 707.1 51.571 32.89

305 WA 188 6.74 1.5 0.109 22.26

OWA 188 6.31 1.5 0.109 23.77

TD1 (5DIM) 174 5.4 1.9 0.144 35.19

TD2 (35DIM) 188 8.1 2.1 0.153 25.93

TD3 (65DIM) 188 8.1 2.0 0.146 24.69

TD4 (95DIM) 188 7.8 1.9 0.139 24.36

TD5 (125DIM) 188 7.2 2.0 0.146 27.78

TD6 (155DIM) 184 7.0 1.8 0.133 25.71

TD7 (185DIM) 181 6.3 1.8 0.134 28.57

TD8 (215DIM) 176 5.7 1.8 0.136 31.58

TD9 (245DIM) 167 5.4 1.7 0.132 31.48

TD10 (275DIM) 151 4.7 1.7 0.138 36.17

TD11 (305DIM) 111 4.3 1.7 0.161 39.53




other reasons.

62


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CCSHAU centre in Set VI


AFC 10 36.48 3.26 1.031 8.94

FSP 2 371 2.12 1.499 0.57

305MY 10 1968 507.54 160.498 25.79

TMY 10 2200 673.52 212.986 30.61

305 WA 10 6.66 1.44 0.455 21.62

OWA 10 6.34 1.26 0.398 19.87

TD1 (5DIM) 10 5.4 2.02 0.639 37.41

TD2 (35DIM) 10 7.9 3.03 0.958 38.35

TD3 (65DIM) 10 8.0 2.18 0.689 27.25

TD4 (95DIM) 10 8.0 2.36 0.746 29.50

TD5 (125DIM) 10 8.1 1.04 0.329 12.84

TD6 (155DIM) 10 7.8 2.21 0.699 28.33

TD7 (185DIM) 10 7.3 1.80 0.569 24.66

TD8 (215DIM) 10 6.8 1.77 0.560 26.03

TD9 (245DIM) 9 6.2 1.56 0.520 25.16

TD10 (275DIM) 9 6.1 1.01 0.337 16.56

TD11 (305DIM) 6 5.8 0.93 0.380 16.03


figures in parenthesis are days in milk (DIM). ** First service period records were not maintained

properly in CCSHAU, Hisar.

63


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes for CCSHAU centre in Set VII


AFC 15 43.89 5.77 1.490 13.15

FSP 1 92.00 - - -

305MY 15 1998.47 388.13 100.215 19.42

TMY 15 2180.40 562.92 145.345 25.82

305 WA 15 6.81 1.00 0.258 14.68

OWA 15 6.39 0.85 0.219 13.30

TD1 (5DIM) 15 5.2 1.77 0.457 34.04

TD2 (35DIM) 15 8.0 2.46 0.635 30.75

TD3 (65DIM) 15 8.2 2.15 0.555 26.22

TD4 (95DIM) 15 8.0 2.47 0.638 30.88

TD5 (125DIM) 15 8.2 1.27 0.328 15.49

TD6 (155DIM) 15 8.2 1.65 0.426 20.12

TD7 (185DIM) 15 7.9 1.64 0.423 20.76

TD8 (215DIM) 15 7.2 1.59 0.411 22.08

TD9 (245DIM) 14 6.4 1.08 0.289 16.88

TD10 (275DIM) 12 6.1 0.90 0.260 14.75

TD11 (305DIM) 9 5.8 0.61 0.203 10.52




64


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using CCSHAU centre pooled

information


AFC 25 40.92 6.09 1.218 14.88

FSP 3 278 160.79 92.832 57.84

305MY 25 1994 437.30 87.460 21.93

TMY 25 2209 608.28 121.656 27.54

305 WA 25 6.77 1.18 0.236 17.43

OWA 25 6.37 1.01 0.202 15.86

TD1 (5DIM) 25 5.3 1.81 0.362 34.15

TD2 (35DIM) 25 7.8 2.55 0.510 32.69

TD3 (65DIM) 25 8.1 2.13 0.426 26.30

TD4 (95DIM) 25 8.0 2.40 0.480 30.00

TD5 (125DIM) 25 8.2 1.16 0.232 14.15

TD6 (155DIM) 25 8.1 1.83 0.366 22.59

TD7 (185DIM) 25 7.7 1.68 0.336 21.82

TD8 (215DIM) 25 7.1 1.60 0.320 22.54

TD9 (245DIM) 23 6.4 0.92 0.192 14.38

TD10 (275DIM) 21 6.1 1.07 0.233 17.54

TD11 (305DIM) 16 6.0 0.97 0.243 16.17




65


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using pooled information of Set

I


AFC 106 46.15 6.78 0.659 14.69

FSP 86 190.95 115.83 12.490 60.66

305MY 106 1774.42 549.90 53.411 30.99

TMY 106 1972.28 719.77 69.910 36.49

305 WA 106 6.11 1.56 0.152 25.53

OWA 106 5.72 1.32 0.128 23.08

TD1 (5DIM) 96 3.91 2.09 0.213 53.45

TD2 (35DIM) 106 7.30 2.09 0.203 28.63

TD3 (65DIM) 106 7.22 2.03 0.197 28.12

TD4 (95DIM) 106 7.23 2.06 0.200 28.49

TD5 (125DIM) 105 6.88 2.12 0.207 30.81

TD6 (155DIM) 105 6.47 1.81 0.177 27.98

TD7 (185DIM) 105 5.87 1.96 0.191 33.39

TD8 (215DIM) 100 5.73 1.82 0.182 31.76

TD9 (245DIM) 96 5.11 1.82 0.186 35.62

TD10 (275DIM) 78 4.74 1.67 0.189 35.23

TD11 (305DIM) 65 4.15 1.64 0.203 39.52




other reasons.

66



II


AFC 112 43.73 6.73 0.636 15.39

FSP 92 196.10 124.61 12.991 63.54

305MY 112 1797.84 465.23 43.960 25.88

TMY 112 1957.93 648.80 61.306 33.14

305 WA 112 6.23 1.48 0.140 23.76

OWA 112 5.92 1.36 0.129 22.97

TD1 (5DIM) 95 5.20 2.13 0.219 40.96

TD2 (35DIM) 112 7.60 2.18 0.206 28.68

TD3 (65DIM) 112 7.78 1.95 0.184 25.06

TD4 (95DIM) 112 7.53 1.91 0.180 25.37

TD5 (125DIM) 112 7.06 1.92 0.181 27.20

TD6 (155DIM) 112 6.449 1.67 0.158 25.90

TD7 (185DIM) 111 5.98 1.95 0.185 32.61

TD8 (215DIM) 106 5.29 1.61 0.156 30.43

TD9 (245DIM) 100 4.84 1.62 0.162 33.47

TD10 (275DIM) 88 4.11 1.73 0.184 42.09

TD11 (305DIM) 68 3.41 1.66 0.201 48.68




other reasons.

67



III


AFC 106 45.66 6.63 0.644 14.52

FSP 88 214.89 1.33 0.142 0.62

305MY 106 1722.79 4.54 0.441 0.26

TMY 106 1885.52 5.84 0.567 0.31

305 WA 106 5.99 1.30 0.126 21.70

OWA 106 5.64 1.19 0.116 21.10

TD1 (5DIM) 92 4.72 1.73 0.180 36.65

TD2 (35DIM) 106 7.20 1.95 0.189 27.08

TD3 (65DIM) 106 7.33 1.65 0.160 22.51

TD4 (95DIM) 106 7.05 1.70 0.165 24.11

TD5 (125DIM) 105 6.58 1.77 0.173 26.90

TD6 (155DIM) 104 6.33 1.65 0.162 26.07

TD7 (185DIM) 100 5.88 1.54 0.154 26.19

TD8 (215DIM) 98 5.29 1.48 0.150 27.98

TD9 (245DIM) 91 5.10 1.44 0.151 28.24

TD10 (275DIM) 82 4.43 1.54 0.170 34.76

TD11 (305DIM) 67 4.02 1.52 0.186 37.81




other reasons.

68



IV


AFC 118 46.36 7.16 0.659 15.44

FSP 93 242.04 157.01 16.281 64.87

305MY 120 1727.78 451.94 41.256 26.16

TMY 120 1931.23 648.84 59.231 33.60

305 WA 120 6.03 1.24 0.113 20.56

OWA 120 5.72 1.13 0.103 19.76

TD1 (5DIM) 110 4.50 1.50 0.143 33.33

TD2 (35DIM) 120 7.22 1.81 0.165 25.07

TD3 (65DIM) 120 7.23 1.50 0.137 20.75

TD4 (95DIM) 120 6.92 1.43 0.131 20.66

TD5 (125DIM) 120 6.40 1.58 0.144 24.69

TD6 (155DIM) 120 6.19 1.52 0.139 24.56

TD7 (185DIM) 116 5.94 1.70 0.158 28.62

TD8 (215DIM) 112 5.68 1.60 0.151 28.17

TD9 (245DIM) 103 5.16 1.64 0.162 31.78

TD10 (275DIM) 89 4.72 1.45 0.154 30.72

TD11 (305DIM) 72 4.45 1.22 0.144 27.42




other reasons.

69



V


AFC 137 41.70 6.23 0.532 14.94

FSP 97 160.30 104.87 10.648 65.42

305MY 139 1772.28 535.94 45.458 30.24

TMY 139 1901.79 662.19 56.166 34.82

305 WA 139 6.27 1.56 0.132 24.88

OWA 139 6.01 1.45 0.123 24.13

TD1 (5DIM) 135 4.81 1.75 0.151 36.38

TD2 (35DIM) 139 7.30 2.10 0.178 28.77

TD3 (65DIM) 139 7.42 2.05 0.174 27.63

TD4 (95DIM) 139 7.11 2.02 0.171 28.41

TD5 (125DIM) 139 6.92 2.15 0.182 31.07

TD6 (155DIM) 137 6.45 2.11 0.180 32.71

TD7 (185DIM) 133 5.89 1.81 0.157 30.73

TD8 (215DIM) 124 5.73 1.83 0.164 31.94

TD9 (245DIM) 117 5.09 1.85 0.171 36.35

TD10 (275DIM) 99 4.78 1.68 0.169 35.15

TD11 (305DIM) 69 4.38 1.52 0.183 34.70




other reasons.

70



VI


AFC 130 43.23 6.64 0.582 15.36

FSP 72 202.92 137.62 16.219 67.82

305MY 131 1812.50 491.52 42.944 27.12

TMY 131 1992.74 679.47 59.366 34.10

305 WA 131 6.27 1.46 0.128 23.29

OWA 131 6.00 1.32 0.115 22.00

TD1 (5DIM) 129 5.09 1.74 0.153 34.18

TD2 (35DIM) 131 7.56 1.96 0.171 25.93

TD3 (65DIM) 131 7.61 2.00 0.175 26.28

TD4 (95DIM) 131 7.36 1.57 0.137 21.33

TD5 (125DIM) 131 7.06 1.86 0.163 26.35

TD6 (155DIM) 130 6.77 1.87 0.164 27.62

TD7 (185DIM) 129 6.20 1.82 0.160 29.35

TD8 (215DIM) 126 5.71 1.72 0.153 30.12

TD9 (245DIM) 119 5.17 1.49 0.137 28.82

TD10 (275DIM) 102 4.78 1.64 0.162 34.31

TD11 (305DIM) 75 4.57 1.54 0.178 33.70




other reasons.

71



VII


AFC 118 43.00 5.53 0.509 12.86

FSP 75 212.40 133.51 15.416 62.86

305MY 118 1813.08 505.96 46.577 27.91

TMY 118 1988.25 668.45 61.536 33.62

305 WA 118 6.37 1.58 0.145 24.80

OWA 118 6.08 1.46 0.134 24.01

TD1 (5DIM) 113 4.19 1.81 0.170 43.20

TD2 (35DIM) 118 7.43 1.90 0.175 25.57

TD3 (65DIM) 118 7.71 2.02 0.186 26.20

TD4 (95DIM) 118 7.27 2.15 0.198 29.57

TD5 (125DIM) 117 6.98 2.11 0.195 30.23

TD6 (155DIM) 115 6.87 1.96 0.183 28.53

TD7 (185DIM) 114 6.34 1.79 0.168 28.23

TD8 (215DIM) 111 5.85 1.86 0.177 31.79

TD9 (245DIM) 101 5.57 1.58 0.157 28.37

TD10 (275DIM) 90 5.10 1.43 0.151 28.04

TD11 (305DIM) 67 4.55 1.47 0.180 32.31




other reasons.

72


reproduction and production traits of Murrah buffaloes using overall pooled

information


AFC 827 44.14 6.72 0.234 15.22

FSP 603 202.27 131.69 5.363 65.11

305MY 832 1775.39 495.18 17.167 27.89

TMY 832 1947.08 659.24 22.855 33.86

305 WA 832 6.18 1.46 0.051 23.62

OWA 832 5.87 1.33 0.046 22.66

TD1 (5DIM) 770 4.64 1.86 0.067 40.09

TD2 (35DIM) 832 7.37 2.00 0.069 27.14

TD3 (65DIM) 832 7.47 1.91 0.066 42.73

TD4 (95DIM) 832 7.21 1.91 0.066 26.49

TD5 (125DIM) 829 6.84 1.95 0.068 28.51

TD6 (155DIM) 823 6.51 1.83 0.064 28.11

TD7 (185DIM) 808 6.02 1.80 0.063 29.90

TD8 (215DIM) 777 5.67 1.72 0.062 30.34

TD9 (245DIM) 727 5.14 1.65 0.061 32.10

TD10 (275DIM) 628 4.67 1.61 0.064 34.48

TD11 (305DIM) 483 4.22 1.55 0.071 36.73




other reasons.

73

4.2 Factors affecting various Reproduction and Production Traits in

Murrah buffaloes

4.2.1 Reproduction Traits

4.2.1.1 Age at first calving (AFC)

The overall least-squares mean for age at first calving for pooled data was estimated

as 43.69 ±0.46 months for first lactating Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and figure-1). Centre

had significant effect on age at calving in the present study. Centre-wise least-squares means

for AFC for NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 42.82 ± 0.41, 47.81 ±

0.48, 42.16 ± 0.55 and 41.99 ± 1.34 months, respectively (Table-50a and Figure-1). Season of

calving did not affect age at first calving in the present study. Similar results were obtained

by other workers (Reddy and Mistra, 1980; Sharma, 1982; Jain and Taneja, 1982; Vij and

Tiwana, 1987; Sharma and Singh, 1988; Dutt and Yadav, 1988; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995;

Nath, 1996; Nawale, 2010 and Patil, 2011). However, significant effect of season of calving

on age at first calving was reported by many workers (Gogoi et al, 1985; Sahana, 1993;

Gupta et al, 1994; Dutt et al, 2001; Yadav et al, 2003; Wakchaure, 2007 and Gupta, 2009) in

Murrah buffaloes. Gogoi et al. (1985) found that winter calvers had significantly lower AFC

followed by rainy and summer calvers in Murrah buffaloes. Year of calving had significant (p

< 0.01) effect on age at first calving in the present study. Similar findings for effect of period

on age at first calving were obtained by many workers (Reddy and Mistra, 1980; Sharma,

1982; Jain and Taneja, 1982; Gogoi et al. 1985; Vij and Tiwana, 1987; Dutt and Yadav,

1988; Gupta et al, 1994; Sahana, 1993; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Nath, 1996; Dutt et al, 2001

and Yadav et al, 2003; Wakchaure, 2007; Gupta, 2009; Nawale, 2010 and Patil, 2011 ).

However, no reports are available on non-significant effect of year of calving on age at first

calving of Murrah buffaloes.

4.2.1.2 First service period (FSP)

The overall least-squares mean for first service period (FSP) was estimated as 223.17

± 20.40 days for first lactating Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and Figure-2). Centre-wise least-

squares means for FSP for NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 183.35

± 9.50, 231.86 ± 11.83, 194.70 ± 13.42 and 282.78 ± 75.99 days, respectively (Table-50a and

Figure-2) Swain and Bhatnagar (1983) observed least-squares mean for first service period as

148.00±8.9 days in Murrah buffaloes. Gupta et al. (1994) also reported that service period for

first parity as 232.09 ± 10.37 days in Murrah buffaloes. On the other hand, Suresh et al.

74

(2004) estimated first service period as high as 196.68 ± 10.84 days in Murrah buffaloes.

Nawale (2010) reported the least-squares mean for first service period (FSP) as 178.05 ± 9.01

days for first lactating Murrah buffaloes. Patil (2011) reported the least-squares mean for first

service period (FSP) as 161.65 ± 4.60 days for first lactating Murrah buffaloes. Porwal et al.

(1981) also reported much higher period for post-partum fertile oestrous as 195.25±31.06

days for first parity Murrah buffaloes. Centre had significant (p < 0.01) effect on first service

period in the present study. Season of calving did not affect significantly first service period

in the present study. Suresh et al. (2004); Chakraborty (2008) and Nawale, (2010) found

significant effect of season of calving on FSP while, non-significant effect of season of

calving on first service period was obtained by many workers (Jain and Taneja, 1982; Yadav

and Rathi, 1983, Dhara, 1994, Gupta, 2009 and Patil, 2011). El-Arian (1986) observed

significantly longer FSP in autumn and winter calvers in Egyptian buffaloes. Year of calving

did not affect significantly the first service period of Murrah buffaloes in the present study.

Similar results were obtained by Gupta, (2009) and Patil, (2011). Period of calving

significantly affected first service period reported by many workers (Jain and Taneja, 1982;

Yadav and Rathi, 1983; Dhara, 1994; Nath, 1996; Jain, 1996; Rakshe, 2003; Suresh et al.

2004; Wakchaure, 2007; Chakraborty, 2008 and Nawale, 2010).

4.2.2 Production Traits

4.2.2.1 First lactation 305 days milk yield (305MY)

The overall least-squares mean for first lactation 305 day milk yield was estimated as

1846.86±35.94 kg in Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and Figure-3). Centre had significant

effect on 305MY in the present study. Centre-wise least-squares means for 305MY for

NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 1792.45 ± 31.94, 1684.71 ±

37.88, 1941.02 ± 42.90 and 1969.26 ± 104.80 kg, respectively (Table-50a and Figure-3).

Season of calving did not affect significantly first lactation 305 days milk yields of Murrah

buffaloes in the present study. However, the effect of season of calving on 305MY reported

significant by many workers (El-Arian, 1986; Gajbhiye, 1987; Hatwar and Chawla, 1988;

Nath, 1996) and non-significant (Sharma, 1982; Sahana, 1993; Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995;

Jain, 1996; Wakchaure, 2007; Gupta, 2009 and Patil, 2011). Year of calving did not affect

significantly first lactation 305 days milk yields in Murrah buffaloes in present study. Reports

available showed significant effect of period of calving on 305MY (El-Arian, 1986:

Gajbhiye, 1987: Hatwar and Chawla, 1988; Tomar and Tripathi, 1988; Singh et al., 1990;

75

Dhara, 1994; Dass, 1995; Dass and Sharma, 1994; Jain, 1996; Nath, 1996; Saha, 1998;

Wakchaure, 2007; Gupta, 2009 and Patil, 2011).

4.2.2.2 First lactation total milk yield (TMY)

The overall least-squares mean for first lactation total milk yield was estimated as

2034.88 ± 47.97 kg in Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and Figure-3). Centre had significant

effect on TMY in the present study. Centre-wise least-squares means for TMY for NDRI,

CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 1968.93 ± 42.64, 1822.86 ± 50.56,

2162.98 ± 57.26 and 2184.76 ± 139.88 kg, respectively (Table-50a and Figure-3). Season and

year of calving did not affect significantly first lactation total milk yields of Murrah buffaloes

in the present study.

4.2.2.3 First lactation 305 days wet average (305WA)

The overall least-squares mean for first lactation 305 day wet average was estimated

as 6.34 ± 0.10 kg in Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and Figure-3). Centre had significant effect

on 305WA in the present study. Centre-wise least-squares means for 305WA for NDRI,

CIRB, GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 6.25 ± 0.09, 5.79 ± 0.11, 6.74 ± 0.12 and

6.59 ± 0.30 kg, respectively (Table-50a and Figure-3). Season and year of calving did not

affect significantly first lactation 305 day wet average of Murrah buffaloes in the present

study.

4.2.2.4 First lactation overall wet average (OWA)

The overall least-squares mean for first lactation overall wet average was estimated as

5.98 ± 0.09 kg in Murrah buffaloes (Table-50a and Figure-3). Centre had significant effect on

OWA in the present study. Centre-wise least-squares means for OWA for NDRI, CIRB,

GADVASU and CCSHAU were found to be 5.92 ± 0.08, 5.56 ± 0.10, 6.30 ± 0.11 and 6.16 ±

0.27 kg, respectively (Table-50a and Figure-3). Season of calving did not affect significantly

first lactation overall wet average of Murrah buffaloes in the present study. While year of

calving affect significantly first lactation overall wet average of Murrah buffaloes in the

present study.

4.2.2.5 First lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY)

The minimum least-squares mean for first lactation monthly test day milk yield

(TDMY) in Murrah Buffalo was estimated as 4.69±0.14 kg on test day 11 while maximum

first lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY) was 7.66 ± 0.13 kg on test day 3 (Table-

76

50b and 50c and Figure-5). The estimates of the present study were almost in conformity with

the results obtained by Geetha, 2005, Katneni, 2007 and Patil, 2011. Significant effect (p <

0.01) of centre on monthly test day first lactation milk yield was found in all TDMY in the

present study. Significant effect (p < 0.01) of season of calving on monthly test day first

lactation milk yield was found in TD2MY, TD3MY and TD11MY in the present study.

Khosla et al. (1984) and Patil, (2011) reported that the season of calving had significant

effect on the monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah buffaloes. El-Arian (1986) reported that

the season of calving had significantly affected monthly test-day milk yields in Murrah

buffaloes. Garcha and Dev (1994) analyzed monthly test day milk yield data of buffaloes and

reported that the effect of season of calving was significant on all the test-day milk yields.

Significant effect of season of calving on test day lactation milk yield in Murrah buffaloes

was also reported by Kumar and Bhat (1978), Khosla et al. (1984), El-Arain (1986) and

Catillo et al. (2002). TD1MY, TD3MY, TD4MY, TD5MY, TD8MY and TD11MY were

significantly influenced by the year of calving in the present study.

77

Table-50a: Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information of first lactation traits in Murrah buffaloes

Effects AFC FSP 305MY TMY 305WA OWA

Overall (µ) 43.69 ± 0.46

(827)

223.17 ± 20.40

(603)

1846.86 ± 35.94

(832)

2034.88 ± 47.97

(832)

6.34 ± 0.10

(832)

5.98 ± 0.09

(832)

CENTRE

NDRI 42.82 ±0.41

a

(300)

183.35 ± 9.50 a

(250)

1792.45 ± 31.94 b

(305)

1968.93 ± 42.64 b

(305)

6.25 ± 0.09 b

(305)

5.92 ± 0.08 b

(305)

CIRB 47.81±0.48

b

(314)

231.86 ± 11.83 b

(216)

1684.71 ± 37.88 a

(314)

1822.86 ± 50.56 a

(314)

5.79 ± 0.11 a

(314)

5.56 ± 0.10 a

(314)

GADVASU 42.16 ± 0.55

a

(188)

194.70 ±13.42 a

(134)

1941.02 ± 42.90 c

(188)

2162.98 ± 57.26 c

(188)

6.74 ± 0.12 c

(188)

6.30 ± 0.11 d

(188)

CCSHAU 41.99 ± 1.34

a

(25)

282.78 ±75.99 c

(3)

1969.26 ± 104.80 c

(25)

2184.76 ± 139.88 c

(25)

6.59 ± 0.30 c

(25)

6.16 ± 0.27 c

(25)

SEASON OF FIRST CALVING

Least

calving

season

44.136

(287)

232.51 ± 21.78

(210)

1881.96 ± 43.57

(291)

2087.78 ± 58.16

(291)

6.43 ± 0.12

(291)

6.04 ± 0.11

(291)

Most

calving

season

43.26 ± 0.47

(540)

213.84 ± 20.63

(393)

1811.75± 36.94

(541)

1981.99 ± 49.32

(541)

6.26 ± 0.10

(541)

5.93 ± 0.09

(541)

YEAR OF FIRST CALVING

1995 39.39± 2.82

a

(5)

186.16 ± 68.50

(4)

2070.52 ± 220.35

(5)

2173.45 ± 294.13

(5)

7.05 ± 0.64

(5)

6.77 ± 0.58 g

(5)

1996 44.72

± 1.51

cde

(19)

216.09 ± 39.56

(15)

1956.38 ± 117.84

(19)

2147.57 ± 157.29

(19)

6.64 ± 0.34

(19)

6.36 ± 0.31fg

(19)

1997 45.81

± 1.18

de

(33)

215.77± 32.09

(28)

1754.71 ± 92.10

(33)

1969.62 ± 122.93

(33)

5.97 ± 0.26

(33)

5.52 ± 0.25 bc

(33)

78

1998 45.85 ± 2.12

de

(9)

285.01± 47.96

(9)

1665.17 ± 165.24

(9)

1969.74 ± 220.56

(9)

5.58 ± 0.48

(9)

5.02 ± 0.44 a

(9)

1999 42.96 ± 0.79

bc

(77)

229.94 ± 25.36

(64)

1884.81 ± 62.23

(77)

2076.68 ± 83.06

(77)

6.35 ± 0.18

(77)

5.90 ± 0.16 cdef

(77)

2000 44.52 ± 0.83

cde

(66)

227.26 ± 26.12

(53)

1860.91 ± 65.15

(66)

2059.19 ± 86.97

(66)

6.45 ± 0.18

(66)

5.10 ± 0.17 ab

(66)

2001 44.15

± 0.83

cd

(67)

213.02 ± 26.31

(53)

1736.42 ± 65.23

(67)

1896.82 ± 87.07

(67)

5.95 ± 0.19

(67)

5.61 ± 0.17 cd

(67)

2002 43.85

± 0.81

cd

(72)

230.01 ± 25.57

(59)

1804.10 ± 63.26

(72)

2001.96 ± 84.45

(72)

6.16 ± 0.18

(72)

5.70 ± 0.16 cde

(72)

2003 42.96 ± 0.68

bc

(108)

254.55 ± 23.87

(82)

1788.41 ± 53.71

(108)

1996.02 ± 71.69

(108)

6.21 ± 0.15

(108)

5.87 ± 0.14 cdef

(108)

2004 42.78

± 0.74

bc

(91)

196.16 ± 25.42

(62)

1871.62 ± 57.91

(91)

2052.93 ± 77.30

(91)

6.56 ± 0.16

(91)

6.23 ± 0.15 f

(91)

2005 41.18

± 0.72

ab

(80)

214.94 ± 25.01

(54)

1903.16 ± 56.12

(81)

2113.31 ± 74.93

(81)

6.55 ± 0.16

(81)

6.19 ± 0.14 ef

(81)

2006 43.20

± 0.74

bc

(84)

163.54 ± 25.04

(53)

1855.29 ± 57.40

(87)

2043.02 ± 76.62

(87)

6.44 ± 0.16

(87)

6.15 ± 0.15 ef

(87)

2007 43.25 ± 0.68

bc

(88)

240.12 ± 25.67

(49)

1889.94± 53.04

(89)

2092.62± 70.80

(89)

6.61 ± 0.15

(89)

6.26 ± 0.14 fg

(89)

2008 47.10 ± 1.20

e

(28)

206.97 ± 36.11

(18)

1814.57 ± 93.51

(28)

1895.43 ± 124.82

(28)

6.25 ± 0.27

(28)

6.09 ± 0.25 def

(28)

*Least calving season: January to June and most calving season: July to December ** Similar/dissimilar superscript indicates the non-significant/significant

differences between subclasses of means ***Figures in parentheses are the number of observations**** Age at first calving, first service period and milk

yields are in months, days and kg, respectively.

79

Table-50b: Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information of TD1MY to TD6MY in Murrah buffaloes

Effects TD1 (5DIM) TD2 (35DIM) TD3 (65DIM) TD4 (95DIM) TD5 (125DIM) TD6 (155DIM)

Overall (µ) 4.75 ± 0.13

(770)

7.56 ± 0.14

(832)

7.66 ± 0.13

(832)

7.47 ± 0.13

(832)

7.13 ± 0.14

(829)

6.91 ± 0.13

(823)

CENTRE

NDRI 4.17 ± 0.11

a

(302)

7.61± 0.12 b

(305)

7.75± 0.12 b

(305)

7.46± 0.12 b

(305)

7.05± 0.12 b

(302)

6.63± 0.11 b

(300)

CIRB 4.34 ± 0.14

a

(269)

6.78±0.15 a

(314)

6.92±0.14 a

(314)

6.71±0.14 a

(314)

6.35±0.14 a

(314)

6.10±0.13 a

(314)

GADVASU 5.15± 0.16

b

(174)

8.01±0.17 b

(188)

8.03±0.16 b

(188)

7.75±0.16 bc

(188)

7.14±0.16 b

(188)

7.05±0.15 c

(184)

CCSHAU 5.33± 0.38

b

(25)

7.82± 0.41 b

(25)

7.96± 0.39 b

(25)

7.97± 0.39 c

(25)

7.97± 0.41 c

(25)

7.84± 0.38 d

(25)


Least

calving

season

4.71 ± 0.16

(270)

7.79 ± 0.17

(291)

7.82 ± 0.16

(291)

7.52 ± 0.16

(291)

7.09 ± 0.17

(290)

6.89 ± 0.16

(289)

Most

calving

season

4.80 ± 0.13

(500)

7.31 ± 0.14

(541)

7.50 ± 0.13

(541)

7.43 ± 0.14

(541)

7.17 ± 0.14

(539)

6.92 ± 0.13

(534)


1995 4.64

± 0.81

bcd

(5)

8.42 ± 0.87

(5)

9.27 ± 0.83 c

(5)

9.45 ± 0.84 f

(5)

8.83 ± 0.86 d

(5)

7.75 ± 0.80

(5)

1996 4.43

± 0.43

bc

(19)

7.50 ± 0.46

(19)

7.73 ± 0.44 b

(19)

7.64 ± 0.44 cde

(19)

7.55 ± 0.46 c

(19)

7.34 ± 0.43

(19)

1997 4.51

± 0.33

bc

(33)

7.09 ± 0.36

(33)

6.63 ± 0.34 a

(33)

6.67 ± 0.35 ab

(33)

6.63 ± 0.36 b

(32)

6.54 ± 0.34

(32)

80

1998 3.42 ± 0.60

a

(9)

6.41 ± 0.65

(9)

6.20 ± 0.62 a

(9)

6.39 ± 0.63 a

(9)

5.33 ± 0.64 a

(9)

6.53 ± 0.60

(9)

1999 4.95 ± 0.25

bcdef

(58)

7.81 ± 0.24

(77)

7.73 ± 0.23 b

(77)

7.90 ± 0.23 e

(77)

7.30 ± 0.24 bc

(17)

6.72 ± 0.22

(77)

2000 5.55

± 0.25

f

(57)

7.61 ± 0.25

(66)

7.94 ± 0.24 b

(66)

7.64 ± 0.24 cde

(66)

7.44 ± 0.25 c

(66)

6.90 ± 0.23

(66)

2001 4.91

± 0.24

bcdef

(63)

7.27 ± 0.25

(67)

7.38 ± 0.24 b

(67)

6.90 ± 0.24 abc

(67)

6.60 ± 0.25 b

(67)

6.42 ± 0.24

(66)

2002 4.74

± 0.24

bcde

(62)

7.65 ± 0.25

(72)

7.74 ± 0.23 b

(72)

7.52 ± 0.24 cde

(72)

7.09 ± 0.24 bc

(72)

6.67 ± 0.23

(72)

2003 4.64 ± 0.20

bcd

(101)

7.41 ± 0.21

(108)

7.45 ± 0.20 b

(108)

7.14 ± 0.20 bcd

(108)

7.73 ± 0.21 c

(107)

6.61 ± 0.19

(107)

2004 5.03

± 0.21

cdef

(87)

7.63 ± 0.23

(91)

7.52 ± 0.21 b

(91)

7.40 ± 0.22 cde

(91)

7.15 ± 0.22 bc

(91)

6.90 ± 0.21

(89)

2005 5.29

± 0.20

def

(79)

7.67 ± 0.22

(81)

7.89 ± 0.21 b

(81)

7.50 ± 0.21 cde

(81)

7.52 ± 0.21 c

(81)

7.09 ± 0.20

(80)

2006 5.41

± 0.21

ef

(84)

8.02 ± 0.22

(87)

7.97 ± 0.21 b

(87)

7.73 ± 0.21 de

(87)

7.35 ± 0.22 bc

(87)

7.03 ± 0.19

(86)

2007 4.23 ± 0.19

b

(87)

7.67 ± 0.21

(89)

7.92 ± 0.20 b

(89)

7.52 ± 0.20 cde

(89)

7.21 ± 0.20 bc

(88)

7.20 ± 0.21

(87)

2008 4.81 ± 0.35

bcdef

(26)

7.56 ± 0.37

(28)

7.93 ± 0.35 b

(28)

7.23 ± 0.35 bcde

(28)

7.07 ± 0.36 bc

(28)

6.99 ± 0.34

(28)


differences between subclasses of means ***Figures in parentheses are the number of observations

81

Table-50c: Least-squares means and standard errors using overall pooled information of TD7MY to TD11MY in Murrah buffaloes

Effects TD7 (185DIM) TD8 (2155DIM) TD9 (245DIM) TD10 (275DIM) TD11 (305DIM)

Overall (µ) 6.39 ± 0.13

(808)

6.08 ± 0.12

(777)

5.57 ± 0.12

(727)

5.06 ± 0.14

(628)

4.69 ± 0.14

(483)

CENTRE

NDRI 6.00± 0.11

ab

(296)

5.86± 0.11 b

(278)

5.21± 0.11 ab

(260)

4.71± 0.12 a

(219)

4.01± 0.13 a

(178)

CIRB 5.71±0.14

a

(306)

5.47±0.14 a

(298)

5.11±0.14 a

(276)

4.70±0.14 a

(236)

4.43±0.15 b

(178)

GADVASU 6.33±0.15

b

(181)

5.93±0.15 b

(176)

5.56±0.15 b

(168)

4.82±0.16 a

(152)

4.49±0.17 b

(111)

CCSHAU 7.51± 0.38

c

(25)

7.05± 0.36 c

(25)

6.38± 0.37 c

(23)

6.00± 0.38 b

(21)

5.83± 0.40 c

(16)


Least

calving

season

6.32 ± 0.16

(285)

6.11 ± 0.15

(271)

5.66 ± 0.15

(254)

5.24 ± 0.16

(225)

4.90 ± 0.17

(177)

Most

calving

season

6.45 ± 0.13

(523)

6.04 ± 0.13

(506)

5.48 ± 0.13

(473)

4.88 ± 0.14

(403)

4.48 ± 0.15

(306)


1995 6.92 ± 0.80

(5)

8.01 ± 0.85 e

(4)

6.19 ± 0.82

(4)

5.52 ± 0.92

(3)

5.13 ± 1.05 de

(2)

1996 6.81 ± 0.43

(19)

6.43 ± 0.41 d

(19)

5.97 ± 0.40

(18)

5.26 ± 0.47

(12)

5.40 ± 0.46 e

(11)

1997 6.07 ± 0.34

(32)

5.81 ± 0.32 abc

(31)

5.36 ± 0.33

(29)

5.16 ± 0.34

(25)

4.36 ± 0.35 abc

(21)

82

1998 5.79 ± 0.60

(9)

5.92 ± 0.60 abcd

(8)

6.05 ± 0.62

(7)

5.31 ± 0.61

(7)

5.14 ± 0.57 de

(7)

1999 6.19 ± 0.22

(76)

5.74 ± 0.22 abc

(74)

5.26 ± 0.21

(72)

4.61 ± 0.22

(62)

3.93 ± 0.23 a

(50)

2000 6.46

± 0.24

(65)

5.64 ± 0.23 ab

(61)

5.23 ± 0.23

(56)

4.80 ± 0.24

(49)

4.14 ± 0.25 ab

(40)

2001 6.02

± 0.24

(65)

5.48 ± 0.23 a

(64)

4.99 ± 0.23

(61)

4.48 ± 0.23

(54)

4.29 ± 0.26 abc

(39)

2002 6.18

± 0.23

(70)

5.73 ± 0.22 abc

(68)

5.36 ± 0.22

(62)

4.82 ± 0.23

(55)

4.56 ± 0.24 abcd

(45)

2003 6.29 ± 0.19

(104)

5.89 ± 0.19 abc

(100)

5.52 ± 0.19

(91)

5.13 ± 0.20

(77)

4.84 ± 0.21 bcde

(65)

2004 6.52

± 0.21

(86)

6.44 ± 0.21 d

(78)

5.66 ± 0.21

(76)

5.30 ± 0.22

(65)

4.97 ± 0.24 cde

(45)

2005 6.52

± 0.20

(78)

6.15 ± 0.20 bcd

(75)

5.49 ± 0.20

(71)

5.08 ± 0.20

(66)

4.84± 0.21 bcde

(49)

2006 6.49

± 0.21

(86)

5.92 ± 0.20 abcd

(85)

5.24 ± 0.20

(79)

4.95 ± 0.21

(65)

4.95 ± 0.23 cde

(46)

2007 6.58 ± 0.19

(85)

6.22 ± 0.19 cd

(82)

5.76 ± 0.18

(77)

5.46 ± 0.19

(65)

4.95 ± 0.21 cde

(49)

2008 6.58 ± 0.34

(28)

5.69 ± 0.32 abc

(28)

6.85 ± 0.34

(24)

5.94 ± 0.34

(23)

4.15 ± 0.40 ab

(14)


differences between subclasses of means ***Figures in parentheses are the number of observations

83

Table-51: Analysis of variance (M. S. values) of production and reproduction traits of Murrah buffaloes using overall pooled

information

Source of

variation

AFC FSP TD1 TD2 TD3 TD4 TD5 TD 6 TD7 TD8 TD 9 TD10 TD11 305MY TMY 305WA OWA

Centre 1683.5** (3)

88932** (3)

42.5** (3)

64.3** (3)

56.9** (3)

51.5** (3)

43.1** (3)

48.8** (3)

32.9** (3)

23.4** (3)

15.7** (3)

10** (3)

16.6** (3)

276626** (3)

4810563** (3)

36.2** (3)

22** (3)

Season of

Calving

129** (1)

43566 (1)

1.14 (1)

10.7** (1)

17.7** (1)

1.25 (1)

1.04 (1)

0.14 (1)

2.93 (1)

0.99 (1)

4.7 (1)

16.7** (1)

17.2** (1)

847463* (1)

1923782* (1)

4.94 (1)

2.31 (1)

Year of

Calving

99.9**

(13)

16335

(13)

10.2**

(13)

4.10

(13)

7.67**

(13)

8.2**

(13)

8.9**

(13)

3.9

(13)

2.62

(13)

5.83*

(13)

3.48

(13)

3.7

(13)

5.2**

(13)

225600

(13)

269690

(13)

3.37

(13)

4.33**

(13)

Error 38.5**

(809)

16925

(585)

3.16

(752)

3.70

(814)

3.34

(814)

3.4

(814)

3.58

(811)

3.15

(805)

3.15

(790)

2.82

(759)

2.64

(709)

2.49

(610)

2.18

(465)

233779

(814)

416529

(814)

1.98

(814)

1.66

(814)

Figures in parentheses indicate respective degrees of freedom.

* Significant at (p < 0.05). ** Significant at (p < 0.01)

84

43.6942.82

47.81

42.16 41.99

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

AF

C (

mo

nth

s)

OVERALL NDRI CIRB GADVASU CCSHAU

Centre

Figure 1: Overall and centre-wise age at first calving of Murrah buffalo

223.17

183.35

231.86194.70

282.78

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FS

P (

days)


Centre

Figure 2: Overall and centre-wise first service period of Murrah buffalo

85

1846.86

1792.45

1684.71

1941.021969.26

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

FL

305M

Y (

kg

)


Centre

Figure 3: Overall and centre-wise first lactation 305 days milk yield of Murrah buffalo

6.346.25

5.79

6.746.59

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

FL

305W

A (

kg

)


Centre

Figure 4: Overall and centre-wise first lactation 305 days wet average of Murrah

buffalo

86

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

TD1 TD2 TD3 TD4 TD5 TD6 TD7 TD8 TD9 TD10 TD11

TEST DAY

YIE

LD

(kg

)

OVERALL

NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

CCSHAU

Figure 5: Overall and centre-wise first lactation monthly test day milk yield of Murrah

buffalo

4.3 Heritability estimates of first lactation performance traits in Murrah

buffaloes

The estimate of heritability for first lactation 305-days or less milk yield obtained as

0.22±0.06 in Murrah buffaloes (Table-52). The estimated heritability was almost similar with

the results obtained by El-Arian, (1986); Tein and Tripathi, (1990); Ipe and Nagarcenkar,

(1992); Sahana, (1993); Dhara, (1994); Dass, (1995); Nath, (1996); Kumar et al., (2002);

Gupta, (2009) and Patil, (2011). The lower heritability estimate (0.023 ± 0.051) for first

lactation 305-days or less milk yield in Murrah buffaloes was reported by Ipe and

Nagarcenkar, (1992) whereas, the higher heritability estimate (0.65 ± 0.12) for First lactation

305-days or less milk yield was reported by Wakchaure, (2007).

The estimated heritability for first lactation monthly test day milk yield in Murrah

buffalo in the present study varied from 0.03±0.03 in TD5MY and 0.21±0.07 in TD11 MY

(Table-52). The estimated heritability was almost similar with the results obtained by Geetha,

(2005) and Katneni, (2007) and Patil, (2011) in Murrah buffaloes.

4.4 Genetic and Phenotypic correlations

Genetic correlation among TDMY with 305MY ranged between 0.14 and 0.99.

Phenotypic correlation gives an idea about the nature and magnitude of the relationship

between two traits. Phenotypic correlations of first lactation monthly test day milk yield

obtained as 0.21 to 0.78 in Murrah buffaloes and presented in Table-52. It was observed that

TD6MY had the highest genetic and phenotypic correlation with 305MY in Murrah

buffaloes.

87

Table 52: Heritability (diagonal), genetic (below diagonal) and phenotypic (above diagonal) correlation of production traits in Murrah

buffaloes using overall pooled information

Traits TD1

(5DIM)

TD2

(35DIM)

TD3

(65DIM)

TD4

(95DIM)

TD5

(125DIM)

TD6

(155DIM)

TD7

(185DIM)

TD8

(215DIM)

TD9

(245DIM)

TD10

(275DIM)

TD11

(305DIM) 305 MY

TD1

(5DIM) 0.10±0.03 0.47±0.03 0.39±0.03 0.33±0.03 0.32±0.03 0.33±0.03 0.25±0.03 0.26±0.04 0.18±0.04 0.15±0.04 0.15±0.05 0.21±0.05

TD2

(35DIM) 0.78±0.23 0.10± 0.03 0.73±0.02 0.66±0.03 0.59±0.03 0.56±0.03 0.54±0.03 0.43±0.03 0.36±0.03 0.35±0.04 0.34±0.04 0.55±0.04

TD3

(65DIM) NE NE NE 0.74±0.02 0.66±0.03 0.61±0.03 0.52±0.03 0.45±0.03 0.41±0.03 0.39±0.04 0.37±0.04 0.57±0.04

TD4

(95DIM) 0.32±0.63 NE NE NE 0.72±0.02 0.66±0.03 0.57±0.03 0.48±0.03 0.44±0.03 0.37±0.04 0.33±0.04 0.58±0.04

TD5

(125DIM) 0.54±0.90 0.89±0.22 0.70±0.81 NE 0.03± 0.03 0.74±0.02 0.64±0.03 0.56±0.03 0.47±0.03 0.44±0.04 0.39±0.04 0.63±0.04

TD6

(155DIM) 0.84±0.28 NE 0.67±1.04 NE NE NE 0.71±0.02 0.59±0.03 0.77±0.03 0.46±0.04 0.38±0.04 0.78±0.02

TD7

(185DIM) 0.38±0.84 NE 0.06±0.83 0.46±0.70 NE 0.28±1.10 0.10±0.03 0.72±0.02 0.62±0.03 0.56±0.03 0.44±0.04 0.62± 0.04

TD8

(215DIM) 0.62±1.31 NE -0.74±2.93 NE NE NE NE NE 0.68±0.03 0.52±0.03 0.44±0.04 0.54±0.04

TD 9

(245DIM) -0.73±0.33 0.51±0.54 0.16±0.47 NE 0.96±0.06 NE 0.94±0.07 0.80±0.21 0.15± 0.04 0.66±0.03 0.55±0.04 0.50±0.04

TD10

(275DIM) NE 0.55±0.52 0.23±0.81 NE 0.35±0.41 NE NE NE NE 0.21± 0.05 0.69±0.03 0.50±0.04

TD11

(305DIM) -0.34±0.48 NE NE NE 0.92±0.06 NE NE NE 0.97±0.02 NE 0.21±0.07 0.40±0.04

305MY 0.42±0.39 0.52±0.74 0.20±0.42 NE 0.95±0.08 0.99±0.04 NE NE 0.82±0.13 0.14±0.50 -0.36±0.89 0.22±0.06

88

4.5 Genetic gain estimation

Set-wise expected genetic gain was estimated for each centre (NDRI, CIRB, GADVASU and

CCSHAU) as well for the overall Network project on Murrah buffalo Improvement.

Heritability for first lactation 305 days milk yield was estimated as 0.22 (Table-52). Set-wise

generation interval was also estimated (Table-53). In the initial sets the generation interval

was a bit higher but in subsequent sets it became less which is required for higher annual

genetic gain.

Table 53: Set-wise generation interval (year) for pooled data and for each centre

Set No. Overall NDRI CIRB GADVASU CCSHAU

I 5.51 5.21 6.35 6.24 -

II 4.86 4.88 4.99 4.74 -

III 4.69 4.61 4.83 4.61 -

IV 4.68 4.74 4.8 4.32 -

V 4.62 4.5 4.69 4.71 -

VI 4.56 4.51 4.59 4.42 4.95

VII 4.18 4.19 4.13 4.21 4.33

Set-wise expected genetic gain for overall pooled information and also for centre-wise

information for first lactation 305 days milk yield and first lactation 305 days wet average

was estimated. There was no uniform trend observed in the initial sets however the rate of

change in genetic gain was found uniform in subsequent sets. One of the reasons behind this

trend is that there was differential herd size of buffalo in different centres.

4.5.1 Expected genetic gain for first lactation 305 days milk yield

4.5.1.1 Expected genetic gain for overall Network project

In set I 118 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set I was found 1769.5 kg. The average

performance of 20 daughters of top two bulls was found 1823.7 kg. Selection differential was

estimated as 54.2 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 11.92 kg.

Generation interval in set I using pooled information was found 5.51 years. Expected genetic

89

gain per year was found 2.16 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.12 per

cent (Table 54).

In set II 115 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set II was found 1797.6 kg. The average


estimated as 41.2 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 9.06 kg. Generation

interval in set II using pooled information was found 4.86 years. Expected genetic gain per

year was found 1.87 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.10 per cent

(Table 54).

In set III 113 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set III was found 1724.9 kg. The average

performance of 10 daughters of top two bulls was found 2013 kg. Selection differential was


Generation interval in set III using pooled information was found 4.69 years. Expected

genetic gain per year was found 13.51 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found

0.78 per cent (Table 54).

In set IV 121 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set IV was found 1725.3 kg. The average



Generation interval in set IV using pooled information was found 4.68 years. Expected



In set V 141 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set V was found 1768.8 kg. The average



Generation interval in set V using pooled information was found 4.62 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 54).

In set VI 131 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set VI was found 1817.53 kg. The average



90

Generation interval in set VI using pooled information was found 4.56 years. Expected



In set VII 126 daughters information was taken for the estimation of expected genetic

gain. Average performance of daughters in set VII was found 1808.2 kg. The average



Generation interval in set VII using pooled information was found 4.18 years. Expected



4.5.1.2 Expected genetic gain for NDRI Centre


gain. Average performance of daughters in set I was found 1720.5 kg. The average


estimated as -5.5 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found -1.21 kg. Generation

interval in set I using NDRI centre information was found 5.21 years. Expected genetic gain

per year was found -0.23 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -0.01 per cent

(Table 56).


gain. Average performance of daughters in set II was found 1687 kg. The average



Generation interval in set III using NDRI centre information was found 4.88 years. Expected






estimated as 87 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 19.14 kg. Generation

interval in set III using NDRI centre information was found 4.61 years. Expected genetic gain

per year was found 4.15 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.27 per cent

(Table 56).

91


gain. Average performance of daughters in set IV was found 1679 kg. The average



Generation interval in set IV using NDRI centre information was found 4.74 years. Expected







Generation interval in set V using NDRI centre information was found 4.5 years. Expected







Generation interval in set VI using NDRI centre information was found 4.51 years. Expected







Generation interval in set VII using NDRI centre information was found 4.19 years. Expected



4.5.1.3 Expected genetic gain for CIRB Centre


gain. Average performance of daughters in set I was found 1759 kg. The average



92

interval in set I using CIRB centre information was found 6.35 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 58).




estimated as -3 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found -0.66 kg. Generation

interval in set III using CIRB centre information was found 4.99 years. Expected genetic gain

per year was found -0.13 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -0.01 per cent

(Table 58).


gain. Average performance of daughters in set III was found 1687 kg. The average





(Table 58).





interval in set IV using pooled information was found 4.8 years. Expected genetic gain per

year was found 8.16 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.49 per cent

(Table 58).


gain. Average performance of daughters in set V was found 1539 kg. The average



interval in set V using CIRB centre information was found 4.69 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 58).


gain. Average performance of daughters in set VI was found 1592 kg. The average


93


interval in set VI using CIRB centre information was found 4.59 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 58).


gain. Average performance of daughters in set VII was found 1686 kg. The average



interval in set VII using CIRB centre information was found 4.13 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 58).

4.5.1.4 Expected genetic gain for GADVASU Centre


gain. Average performance of daughters in set I was found 2183 kg. The average



interval in set I using GADVASU centre information was found 6.24 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 60).





interval in set III using GADVASU centre information was found 4.74 years. Expected

genetic gain per year was found -0.60 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -



gain. Average performance of daughters in set III was found 2229 kg. The average



interval in set III using GADVASU centre information was found 4.61 years. Expected



94





interval in set IV using GADVASU centre information was found 4.32 years. Expected




gain. Average performance of daughters in set V was found 1768 kg. The average



interval in set V using GADVASU centre information was found 4.71 years. Expected







interval in set VI using GADVASU centre information was found 4.42 years. Expected

genetic gain per year was found 10 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.50

per cent (Table 60).





interval in set VII using GADVASU centre information was found 4.21 years. Expected



4.5.1.5 Expected genetic gain for CCSHAU Centre





95

interval in set VI using CCSHAU centre information was found 4.95 years. Expected genetic

gain per year was found -0.58 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -0.03 per

cent (Table 62).





interval in set VII using CCSHAU centre information was found 4.33 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 62).

4.5.2 Expected genetic gain for first lactation 305 days wet average

4.5.2.1 Expected genetic gain for overall Network project


gain. Average performance of daughters in set I was found 6.12 kg. The average performance

of 20 daughters of top two bulls was found 6.09 kg. Selection differential was estimated as

-0.03 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found -0.007 kg. Generation interval

in set I using pooled information was found 5.51 years. Expected genetic gain per year was

found -0.001 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -0.021 per cent (Table 55).




estimated as -0.43 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found -0.103 kg.


genetic gain per year was found -0.021 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found

-0.341 per cent (Table 55).








96


gain. Average performance of daughters in set IV was found 6 kg. The average performance


0.46 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 0.110 kg. Generation interval in

set IV using pooled information was found 4.68 years. Expected genetic gain per year was

found 0.024 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.393 per cent (Table 55).





Generation interval in set V using pooled information was found 4.62 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 55).





Generation interval in set VI using pooled information was found 4.56 years. Expected







Generation interval in set VII using pooled information was found 4.18 years. Expected



4.5.2.2 Expected genetic gain for NDRI Centre




-0.13 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found -0.03 kg. Generation interval in

set I using NDRI centre information was found 5.21 years. Expected genetic gain per year

97

was found -0.01 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found -0.10 per cent (Table

57).







(Table 57).







(Table 57).





interval in set IV using NDRI centre information was found 4.74 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 57).





interval in set V using NDRI centre information was found 4.5 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 57).





98

interval in set VI using NDRI centre information was found 4.51 years. Expected genetic gain


(Table 57).





interval in set VII using NDRI centre information was found 4.19 years. Expected genetic


cent (Table 57).

4.5.2.3 Expected genetic gain for CIRB Centre




0.66 kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 0.158 kg. Generation interval in

set I using CIRB centre information was found 6.35 years. Expected genetic gain per year

was found 0.025 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.412 (Table 59).





Generation interval in set III using CIRB centre information was found 4.99 years. Expected

genetic gain per year was found -0.0005 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found

-0.008 per cent (Table 59).







(Table 59).

In set IV 74 daughters information were taken for the estimation of expected genetic


99



Generation interval in set IV using CIRB centre information was found 4.8 years. Expected







Generation interval in set V using CIRB centre information was found 4.69 years. Expected







Generation interval in set VI using CIRB centre information was found 4.59 years. Expected







Generation interval in set VII using CIRB centre information was found 4.13 years. Expected



4.5.2.4 Expected genetic gain for GADVASU Centre



of 2 daughters of top two bulls was found 8 kg. Selection differential was estimated as 0.75

kg and expected genetic gain per generation was found 0.18 kg. Generation interval in set I

using GADVASU centre information was found 6.24 years. Expected genetic gain per year

100

was found 0.029 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain was found 0.398 per cent (Table

61).





Generation interval in set III using GADVASU centre information was found 4.74 years.

Expected genetic gain per year was found -0.005 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain

was found -0.076 per cent (Table 61).





Generation interval in set III using GADVASU centre information was found 4.61 years.

Expected genetic gain per year was found 0.046 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain

was found 0.625 per cent (Table 61).





Generation interval in set IV using GADVASU centre information was found 4.32 years.







Generation interval in set V using GADVASU centre information was found 4.71 years.







101

Generation interval in set VI using GADVASU centre information was found 4.42 years.







Generation interval in set VII using GADVASU centre information was found 4.21 years.



4.5.2.5 Expected genetic gain for CCSHAU Centre





Generation interval in set VI using CCSHAU centre information was found 4.95 years.

Expected genetic gain per year was found -0.005 kg. Annual per cent expected genetic gain

was found -0.07 per cent (Table 63).





Generation interval in set VII using CCSHAU centre information was found 4.33 years.



102

Table 54: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY using Pooled Data

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average

(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 118 1769.5 20 1823.7 54.2 11.92 5.51 2.16 0.12

II 115 1797.6 21 1838.8 41.2 9.06 4.86 1.87 0.10

III 113 1724.9 10 2013.0 288.1 63.38 4.69 13.51 0.78

IV 121 1725.3 18 1861.2 135.9 29.90 4.68 6.39 0.37

V 141 1768.8 34 2040.5 271.7 59.77 4.62 12.94 0.73

VI 131 1817.5 30 2005.7 188.2 41.40 4.56 9.08 0.50

VII 126 1808.2 24 1995.6 187.4 41.23 4.18 9.86 0.55

*Heritability of 305MY is 0.22

103

Table 55: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA using Pooled Data

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

% ∆G

/Year

I 118 6.12 20 6.09 -0.03 -0.007 5.51 -0.001 -0.021

II 115 6.22 21 5.79 -0.43 -0.103 4.86 -0.021 -0.341

III 113 5.99 10 6.73 0.74 0.178 4.69 0.038 0.632

IV 121 6.00 18 6.46 0.46 0.110 4.68 0.024 0.393

V 141 6.25 34 6.89 0.64 0.154 4.62 0.033 0.532

VI 131 6.28 30 6.76 0.48 0.115 4.56 0.025 0.402

VII 126 6.34 24 6.90 0.56 0.134 4.18 0.032 0.507

*Heritability of 305WA is 0.24

104

Table 56: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for NDRI centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 78 1720.5 13 1715.0 -5.5 -1.21 5.21 -0.23 -0.01

II 36 1687.0 4 1872.5 185.5 40.81 4.88 8.36 0.50

III 38 1557.3 17 1644.3 87.0 19.14 4.61 4.15 0.27

IV 28 1679.0 7 1852.9 173.9 38.26 4.74 8.07 0.48

V 58 1932.1 23 2111.7 179.6 39.51 4.5 8.78 0.45

VI 32 1952.8 7 2279.9 327.1 71.96 4.51 15.96 0.82

VII 35 1899.2 13 2119.7 220.5 48.51 4.19 11.58 0.61


105

Table 57: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for NDRI centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

Per

cent

∆G

/Year

I 78 5.98 13 5.85 -0.13 -0.03 5.21 -0.01 -0.10

II 36 6.02 4 6.39 0.37 0.09 4.88 0.02 0.30

III 38 5.59 17 5.74 0.15 0.04 4.61 0.01 0.14

IV 28 5.89 7 6.13 0.24 0.06 4.74 0.01 0.21

V 58 6.71 23 7.17 0.46 0.11 4.50 0.02 0.37

VI 32 6.72 7 7.68 0.96 0.23 4.51 0.05 0.76

VII 35 6.72 13 7.18 0.46 0.11 4.19 0.03 0.39


106

Table 58: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for CIRB centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 30 1759 13 1977 218 47.96 6.35 7.55 0.43

II 38 1746 9 1743 -3 -0.66 4.99 -0.13 -0.01

III 58 1687 7 1803 116 25.52 4.83 5.28 0.31

IV 74 1670 8 1848 178 39.16 4.80 8.16 0.49

V 41 1539 8 1694 155 34.10 4.69 7.27 0.47

VI 62 1592 12 1733 141 31.02 4.59 6.76 0.42

VII 57 1686 6 1777 91 20.02 4.13 4.85 0.29


107

Table 59: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for CIRB centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

% ∆G

/Year

I 30 6.06 13 6.72 0.66 0.1584 6.35 0.0250 0.412

II 38 5.92 9 5.91 -0.01 -0.0024 4.99 -0.0005 -0.008

III 58 5.84 7 6.09 0.25 0.0600 4.83 0.0124 0.213

IV 74 5.87 8 6.43 0.56 0.1344 4.80 0.0280 0.477

V 41 5.39 8 5.75 0.36 0.0864 4.69 0.0184 0.342

VI 62 5.59 12 5.91 0.32 0.0768 4.59 0.0167 0.299

VII 57 5.84 6 6.35 0.51 0.1224 4.13 0.0296 0.507


108

Table 60: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for GADVASU centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 10 2183 2 2442 259 56.98 6.24 9.13 0.42

II 41 1943 8 1930 -13 -2.86 4.74 -0.60 -0.03

III 17 2229 3 2505 276 60.72 4.61 13.17 0.59

IV 24 1870 8 1984 114 25.08 4.32 5.81 0.31

V 42 1768 6 2079 311 68.42 4.71 14.53 0.82

VI 32 2008 8 2209 201 44.22 4.42 10.00 0.50

VII 22 1832 4 1895 63 13.86 4.21 3.29 0.18


109

Table 61: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for GADVASU centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 10 7.25 2 8.00 0.75 0.180 6.24 0.029 0.398

II 41 6.67 8 6.57 -0.10 -0.024 4.74 -0.005

-

0.076

III 17 7.33 3 8.21 0.88 0.211 4.61 0.046 0.625

IV 24 6.48 8 6.83 0.35 0.084 4.32 0.019 0.300

V 42 6.46 6 6.94 0.48 0.115 4.71 0.024 0.379

VI 32 6.94 8 7.42 0.48 0.115 4.42 0.026 0.376

VII 22 6.65 4 6.81 0.16 0.038 4.21 0.009 0.137


110

Table 62: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY for CCSHAU centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 12 2046 9 2033 -13 -2.86 4.95 -0.58 -0.03

II 15 1998 4 2062 64 14.08 4.33 3.25 0.16


Table 63: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA for CCSHAU centre

Set

No.

Total

daughters

All

daughters

average

(kg)

Total

daughters

of top two

bulls

Average

of

daughters

of top two

bulls(kg)

Selection

Differential

(SD)

(kg)

Expected

Genetic

Gain/Generation

(∆G=h2

X SD)

(kg)

Generation

Interval

(GI)

(Year)

Expected

∆G /Year

(h2XSD/GI)

(kg)

%

∆G

/Year

I 12 6.88 9 6.78 -0.1 -0.024 4.95 -0.005 -0.07

II 15 6.81 4 6.85 0.04 0.010 4.33 0.002 0.03


111

0.10

0.78

0.37

0.73

0.55

0.12

0.50

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

SET I SET II SET III SET IV SET V SET VI SET VII

Set

An

nu

al

Gen

eti

c G

ain

(%

)

Figure 6: Set-wise overall expected genetic gain for 305MY using pooled data

-0.01

0.50

0.27

0.48 0.45

0.82

0.61

-0.01

0.42

0.29

0.59

0.31

0.82

0.50

0.18

0.490.47

0.31

0.43

-0.03

0.42

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90


Set

An

nu

al

Gen

eti

c G

ain

(%

)

NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

Figure 7: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305MY in NDRI, CIRB and GADVASU

centres

112

-0.021

-0.341

0.632

0.393

0.532

0.402

0.507

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8


An

nu

al

Gen

eti

c G

ain

(%

)

Figure 8: Set-wise overall expected genetic gain for 305WA using pooled data

-0.100

0.300

0.1400.210

0.370

0.760

0.390

-0.008

0.213

0.477

0.299

0.507

-0.076

0.625

0.3000.376

0.137

0.342

0.412

0.3790.398

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Set

An

nu

al

Gen

eti

c G

ain

(%

)

NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

Figure 9: Set-wise expected genetic gain for 305WA in NDRI, CIRB and GADVASU

centres

113

4.6 Genetic Evaluation of Murrah Bulls

4.6.1 Sire evaluation methods

Sire evaluation is one of the most important aspects of dairy animal genetic improvement

program which involves the estimation of breeding value of the bulls on the basis of first

lactation 305-days or less milk yield of their daughters. In addition to the first lactation 305-

days or less milk yield, test day records and wet average may also be used for evaluation of

dairy sires for increasing the milk production as these records have very high genetic and

phenotypic relationship with first lactation 305-days or less milk yield. The objective of the

present study was to evaluate the Murrah sires on the basis of first lactation 305-days and less

milk yield as well as by test day records and wet average.

Murrah test bulls were used at Central Institute for Research on Buffalo (CIRB),

Hisar, National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Karnal, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and

Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana and Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana

Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement.

The breeding values of Murrah buffalo bulls were estimated for first lactation 305-days or

less milk yield, first lactation 305-day wet average and first lactation test day 6 milk yield.

The breeding values were estimated by four different methods viz., Contemporary

Comparison (CC), Least-Squares (LS), Simple Regressed Least-Squares (SRLS), and Best

Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP). The expected breeding values (EBVs) of Murrah

buffalo bulls were estimated set-wise and along with their ranks for 95 Murrah buffalo bulls

in respective set based on first lactation 305-days or less milk yield, first lactation 305-day

wet average and first lactation test day 6 milk yield are presented in Table 64 to105.

4.6.1.1 Breeding value estimation for first lactation 305 days or less milk yield

The breeding value of 95 Murrah buffalo bulls in respective set estimated on the basis

of first lactation 305 days or less milk yield by different methods along with their ranks are

presented in Table 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100 and 103.

4.6.1.1.1 Contemporary comparison Method

The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305-days or less milk yield

by CC Method were 1851.67kg, 1826.87kg, 1815.16kg, 1817.65kg, 1818.33kg, 1722.97kg

and 1848.52kg for set I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table

123).

114

In set I the top ranking sire (sire 3098) with highest breeding value (1959.58 kg) had

17.19% genetic superiority over the overall average, whereas the sire 3125 ranked at bottom

with lowest breeding value of 1641.32 kg which was 11.36% below the overall average

breeding value of sires. The difference between highest and lowest breeding values was

318.26 kg. In set I as many as 6 sires (56%) out of a total of 11 sires had breeding values

more than the average breeding value and the remaining 5 sires (44%) had breeding value

lower than the average breeding value.

In set II the top ranking sire (sire 829) with highest breeding value (1942.49 kg) had




243.94 kg. In set II as many as 7 sires (58%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values



In set III the top ranking sire (sire 1153) with highest breeding value (1930.81 kg) had




213.98 kg. In set III as many as 7 (47%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more

than the average breeding value and the remaining 8 sires (53%) had breeding value lower

than the average breeding value.

In set IV the top ranking sire (sire 4124) with highest breeding value (1879.10 kg) had




188.26 kg. In set IV as many as 8 sires (57%) out of a total of 14 sires had breeding values



In set V the top ranking sire (sire 4393) with highest breeding value (2016.81 kg) had




434.73 kg. In set V as many as 5 sires (33%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values

115



In set VI the top ranking sire (sire 1153) with highest breeding value (2058.11 kg) had




335.14 kg. In set VI as many as 6 sires (38%) out of a total of 16 sires had breeding values



In set VII the top ranking sire (sire 1796) with highest breeding value (2001.54 kg)

had 13.89% genetic superiority over the overall average, whereas the sire 1746 ranked at

bottom with lowest breeding value of 1744.78 kg which was 5.61% below the overall average


256.76 kg. In set VII as many as 6 sires (50%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values



Overall highest EBV (2058.11kg) was obtained by bull 1153 of CCSHAU centre in

set VI while lowest EBV (1582.08kg) was obtained by bull 1524 of GADVASU centre in set

V.

4.6.1.1.2 Least-Squares Method


by LS Method were 1840.33 kg, 1863.67 kg, 1860.65 kg, 1806.51 kg, 1773.72 kg, 1809.58

kg and 1825.39 kg for set I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table

123).








116










with lowest breeding value of 1575.23 kg which was 15.34 % below the overall average


558.65 kg. In set III as many as 7 sires (47%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values




25.03 % genetic superiority over the overall average, whereas the sire 1446 ranked at bottom


















117




had 52.89 % genetic superiority over the overall average, whereas the sire 2133 ranked at

bottom with lowest breeding value of 1321.32 kg which was 27.61 % below the overall

average breeding value of sires. The difference between highest and lowest breeding values

was 965.37 kg. In set VII as many as 8 sires (67%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding

values more than the average breeding value and the remaining 4 sires (33%) had breeding

value lower than the average breeding value.

Overall highest breeding value (2238.69 kg) was obtained by bull 1796 of

GADVASU centre in set VII while lowest breeding value (1321.32 kg) was obtained by bull

2133 of CIRB centre in set VII.

4.6.1.1.3 Simple Regressed Least-Squares Method


by SRLS Method were 18543.62 kg, 1855.78 kg, 1852.43 kg, 1809.99 kg, 1785.48 kg,

1825.67 kg and 1838.62 kg for set I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII,

respectively (Table 123).











breeding value of sires. The difference between highest and lowest breeding values was 277.2

kg. In set II as many as 6 sires (50%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more than

the average breeding value and the remaining 6 sires (50%) had breeding value lower than

the average breeding value.

118


































119



Overall highest breeding value (2061.76 kg) was obtained by bull 4393 of NDRI

centre in set V while lowest breeding value (1469.09 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 of CIRB

centre in set V.

4.6.1.1.4 Best Linear Unbiased Prediction Method

The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305-day or less milk yield by

BLUP Method were 1856.12 kg, 1843.41 kg, 1840.36 kg, 1832.55 kg, 1828.70 kg, 1839.21

kg and 1853.08 kg for set I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table

123).






















120





























Overall highest breeding value (2022.61 kg) was obtained by bull 1796 of CIRB

centre in set VII while lowest breeding value (1630.40 kg) was obtained by bull 1524 of

GADVASU centre in set V.

4.6.1.2 Breeding value estimation for first lactation 305-day wet average

121

The breeding value of 95 Murrah buffalo bulls in respective set estimated on the basis of first

lactation 305 day wet average by different methods along with their ranks is presented in

Table 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 101 and 104.

4.6.1.2.1 Contemporary comparison Method

The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305 day wet average by CC

Method were 6.25 kg, 6.29 kg, 6.26 kg, 6.29 kg, 6.38 kg, 6.41 kg and 6.50 kg for set I, set II,

set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table 124).



with lowest breeding value of 5.49 kg which was 12.16% below the overall average breeding

value of sires. The difference between highest and lowest breeding values was 0.35 kg. In set

I as many as 6 sires (55%) out of a total of 11 sires had breeding values more than the

average breeding value and the remaining 5 sires (45%) had breeding value lower than the

average breeding value.





II as many as 9 sires (75%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more than the







III as many as 8 (53%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than the average

breeding value and the remaining 7 sires (47%) had breeding value lower than the average

breeding value.





122

IV as many as 8 sires (57%) out of a total of 14 sires had breeding values more than the







V as many as 10 sires (67%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than the







VI as many as 8 sires (50%) out of a total of 16 sires had breeding values more than the



In set VII the top ranking sire (sire 1749) with highest breeding value (7.18 kg) had




VII as many as 5 sires (42%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more than the



Overall highest breeding value (7.18 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 of CIRB centre in

set VII while lowest breeding value (5.49 kg) was obtained by bull 3125 of NDRI centre in

set I.


The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305 day wet average by LS



123





kg. In set I as many as 6 sires (55%) out of a total of 11 sires had breeding values more than














kg. In set III as many as 6 (40%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than the














kg. In set V as many as 10 sires (67%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more

124







kg. In set VI as many as 8 sires (50%) out of a total of 16 sires had breeding values more than







kg. In set VII as many as 7 sires (58%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more



Overall highest breeding value (7.655 kg) was obtained by bull 1796 of CIRB centre

in set VII while lowest breeding value (4.683 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 (set V) and 2133

(set VII) of CIRB centre.


The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305 day wet average by

SRLS Method were 6.24 kg, 6.32 kg, 6.28 kg, 6.26 kg, 6.26 kg, 6.29 kg and 6.44 kg for set I,

set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table 124).










125








with lowest breeding value of 5.831 kg which was 7.15 % below the overall average breeding




breeding value.












kg. In set V as many as 9 sires (60%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than










126









in set VII while lowest breeding value (5.394 kg) was obtained by bull 1524 of GADVASU

centre in set V.



BLUP Method were 6.26 kg, 6.29 kg, 6.25 kg, 6.31 kg, 6.37 kg, 6.33 kg and 6.48 kg for set

I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table 124).




value of sires. The difference between highest and lowest breeding values was 0.829 kg. In

set I as many as 6 sires (55%) out of a total of 11 sires had breeding values more than the







set II as many as 7 sires (58%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more than the







127



breeding value.





set IV as many as 7 sires (50%) out of a total of 14 sires had breeding values more than the














set VI as many as 8 sires (50%) out of a total of 16 sires had breeding values more than the







set VII as many as 6 sires (50%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more than the



128


in set VII while lowest breeding value (5.750 kg) was obtained by bull 3125 of NDRI centre

in set I.

4.6.1.3 Breeding value estimation for first lactation test day 6 milk yield

The breeding value of 95 Murrah buffalo bulls in respective set estimated on the basis

of first lactation test day 6 milk yield by different methods along with their ranks are

presented in Table 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 93, 96, 99, 102 and105.

4.6.1.3.1 Contemporary Comparison Method

The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305 day wet average by CC























breeding value.

129












V as many as 6 sires 40%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than the

















Overall highest breeding value (7.57 kg) was obtained by bull 1796 of CIRB centre in

set VII while lowest breeding value (6.04 kg) was obtained by bull 3125 of NDRI centre in

set I.

130


The set-wise overall average EBVs for the first lactation 305 day wet average by LS





















kg. In set III as many as 8 (53%) out of a total of 15 sires had breeding values more than the










131












kg. In set VI as many as 9 sires (56%) out of a total of 16 sires had breeding values more than







kg. In set VII as many as 8 sires (67%) out of a total of 12 sires had breeding values more




in set VII while lowest breeding value (4.133 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 of CIRB centre

in set I.



SRLS Method were 6.74 kg, 6.81 kg, 6.87 kg, 6.66 kg, 6.69 kg, 6.98 kg and 7.07 kg for set I,

set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table 125).





132

















breeding value.















133
















in set V while lowest breeding value (5.610 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 of CIRB centre in

set I.



BLUP Method were 6.73 kg, 6.84 kg, 6.73 kg, 6.69 kg, 6.67 kg, 6.96 kg and 6.91 kg for set

I, set II, set III, set IV, set V, set VI and set VII, respectively (Table 125).












134










breeding value.






















135









in set VII while lowest breeding value (6.176 kg) was obtained by bull 1749 of CIRB centre

in set V.

Table 64: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set I

Bull No. No. of

Daughters CC Method LS Method

SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 1934.93 2135.22 1994.32 1946.02

896 6 1941.68 2115.72 1995.46 1962.25

3098 8 1959.58 2158.90 2039.39 1976.89

3108 18 1954.11 2015.93 1974.46 1948.54

3117 19 1891.08 1891.89 1840.09 1856.70

3125 18 1641.32 1586.90 1646.73 1683.44

3127 10 1730.67 1575.75 1663.41 1694.78

3206 4 1916.81 1993.57 1912.45 1884.15

3294 5 1816.42 1734.39 1785.00 1840.46

3462 2 1788.46 1326.53 1678.40 1804.92

3567 11 1793.25 1708.80 1750.08 1819.11

136

Table 65: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set I

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 6.46 6.983 6.625 6.488

896 6 6.59 7.049 6.693 6.579

3098 8 6.52 7.048 6.743 6.576

3108 18 6.60 6.786 6.656 6.573

3117 19 6.47 6.443 6.394 6.299

3125 18 5.49 5.474 5.647 5.750

3127 10 5.83 5.549 5.768 5.832

3206 4 6.44 6.709 6.455 6.373

3294 5 6.03 5.757 5.976 6.175

3462 2 6.12 4.884 5.793 6.139

3567 11 6.18 5.752 5.897 6.128

Table 66: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set I

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 6.89 7.417 7.012 6.960

896 6 6.79 7.053 6.868 6.913

3098 8 6.92 7.527 7.146 7.039

3108 18 7.06 7.417 7.198 7.131

3117 19 6.73 7.020 6.923 6.608

3125 18 6.04 5.998 6.213 6.247

3127 10 6.45 6.270 6.449 6.484

3206 4 7.12 7.434 6.983 6.909

3294 5 6.61 6.269 6.514 6.602

3462 2 6.48 4.769 6.231 6.461

3567 11 6.65 6.542 6.605 6.654

137

Table 67: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set I

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 4 2 3 4

896 6 3 3 2 2

3098 8 1 1 1 1

3108 18 2 4 4 3

3117 19 6 6 6 6

3125 18 11 9 11 11

3127 10 10 10 10 10

3206 4 5 5 5 5

3294 5 7 7 7 7

3462 2 9 11 9 9

3567 11 8 8 8 8

Table 68: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set I

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 5 3 4 4

896 6 2 1 2 1

3098 8 3 2 1 2

3108 18 1 4 3 3

3117 19 4 6 6 6

3125 18 11 10 11 11

3127 10 10 9 10 10

3206 4 6 5 5 5

3294 5 9 7 7 7

3462 2 8 11 9 8

3567 11 7 8 8 9

138

Table 69: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set I

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

392 5 4 4 3 3

896 6 5 5 6 4

3098 8 3 1 2 2

3108 18 2 3 1 1

3117 18 6 6 5 7

3125 18 11 10 11 11

3127 10 10 8 9 9

3206 4 1 2 4 5

3294 5 8 9 8 8

3462 2 9 11 10 10

3567 11 7 7 7 6

Table 70: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 1790.16 1797.85 1825.94 1835.51

759 8 1884.10 1967.92 1920.71 1889.71

761 11 1879.26 1971.66 1930.15 1906.64

829 7 1942.49 2121.62 1997.04 1952.91

1241 2 1873.96 2081.25 1917.21 1863.89

1253 8 1871.44 1966.86 1920.13 1882.10

1290 11 1712.29 1668.14 1743.29 1754.49

3551 15 1932.20 1993.74 1951.57 1927.16

3638 10 1834.86 1834.52 1846.31 1841.04

3689 9 1746.12 1650.58 1741.54 1749.77

3736 9 1698.55 1612.73 1719.84 1746.03

3750 13 1757.02 1697.15 1755.60 1771.69

139

Table 71: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 6.30 6.198 6.260 6.270

759 8 6.43 6.574 6.464 6.356

761 11 6.29 6.517 6.445 6.422

829 7 6.72 7.102 6.721 6.673

1241 2 6.43 6.894 6.468 6.304

1253 8 6.38 6.503 6.426 6.328

1290 11 5.66 5.481 5.823 5.857

3551 15 6.56 6.644 6.541 6.494

3638 10 6.52 6.768 6.588 6.584

3689 9 5.93 5.494 5.867 5.912

3736 9 6.04 5.735 6.002 6.057

3750 13 6.30 6.143 6.214 6.280

Table 72: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 6.75 6.807 6.823 6.919

759 8 6.79 7.048 6.932 6.913

761 11 6.90 7.246 7.050 7.139

829 7 6.57 6.509 6.699 6.789

1241 2 6.84 7.799 7.011 6.901

1253 8 6.93 7.218 7.008 6.966

1290 11 6.34 5.922 6.360 6.359

3551 15 6.99 7.132 7.010 7.006

3638 10 7.01 7.346 7.091 7.151

3689 9 6.58 6.555 6.702 6.742

3736 9 6.34 6.088 6.480 6.496

3750 13 6.50 6.366 6.575 6.699

140

Table 73: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 8 8 8 8

759 8 3 5 4 4

761 11 4 4 3 3

829 7 1 1 1 1

1241 2 5 2 6 6

1253 8 6 6 5 5

1290 11 11 10 10 10

3551 15 2 3 2 2

3638 10 7 7 7 7

3689 9 10 11 11 11

3736 9 12 12 12 12

3750 13 9 9 9 9

Table 74: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 7 8 8 9

759 8 4 5 5 5

761 11 9 6 6 4

829 7 1 1 1 1

1241 2 5 2 4 7

1253 8 6 7 7 6

1290 11 12 12 12 12

3551 15 2 4 3 3

3638 10 3 3 2 2

3689 9 11 11 11 11

3736 9 10 10 10 10

3750 13 8 9 9 8

141

Table 75: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set II

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

93 9 7 7 7 5

759 8 6 6 6 6

761 11 4 3 2 2

829 7 9 9 9 8

1241 2 5 1 3 7

1253 8 3 4 5 4

1290 11 11 12 12 12

3551 15 2 5 4 3

3638 10 1 2 1 1

3689 9 8 8 8 9

3736 9 12 11 11 11

3750 13 10 10 10 10

Table 76: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 1788.53 1771.56 1803.12 1829.47

1023 4 1861.09 2100.32 1972.18 1929.56

1061 8 1888.34 2028.25 1964.84 1905.36

1084 11 1733.59 1679.14 1736.44 1775.59

1131 3 1886.34 2117.18 1962.90 1916.97

1153 6 1930.81 2133.88 2013.40 1920.06

1165 4 1793.96 1757.95 1812.86 1809.36

1171 3 1760.02 1578.67 1748.27 1767.56

1315 2 1830.84 1992.15 1901.37 1892.23

1354 3 1878.63 2120.74 1964.32 1915.45

3865 5 1716.83 1575.23 1712.98 1757.44

3924 21 1742.60 1733.24 1760.66 1781.17

3930 11 1823.61 1823.87 1835.48 1808.65

3949 7 1740.83 1579.69 1699.99 1720.94

3966 9 1851.43 1917.94 1897.65 1875.56

142

Table 77: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 6.14 6.128 6.191 6.241

1023 4 6.47 7.027 6.616 6.498

1061 8 6.40 6.648 6.505 6.379

1084 11 5.96 5.770 5.947 6.047

1131 3 6.43 7.166 6.620 6.483

1153 6 6.74 7.200 6.777 6.544

1165 4 6.16 5.702 6.034 6.084

1171 3 5.94 5.389 5.957 6.024

1315 2 6.25 6.559 6.371 6.363

1354 3 6.38 6.903 6.522 6.425

3865 5 5.82 5.349 5.831 5.994

3924 20 6.27 6.159 6.191 6.219

3930 11 6.34 6.259 6.272 6.196

3949 7 6.23 5.855 6.045 6.045

3966 9 6.43 6.302 6.299 6.276

Table 78: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 6.84 6.755 6.807 6.768

1023 4 7.05 8.037 7.362 7.175

1061 8 6.75 6.937 6.914 6.781

1084 11 6.25 5.871 6.237 6.382

1131 3 6.79 7.366 7.052 6.952

1153 6 7.18 7.983 7.442 7.081

1165 4 7.00 7.272 7.044 6.781

1171 3 6.52 5.656 6.453 6.445

1315 2 6.79 7.049 6.928 6.906

1354 3 6.86 7.249 7.012 6.889

3865 5 6.41 5.969 6.457 6.479

3924 20 6.78 6.680 6.733 6.533

3930 11 6.88 6.980 6.945 6.738

3949 7 6.78 6.668 6.774 6.247

3966 9 6.65 6.772 6.817 6.779

143

Table 79: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 10 9 10 8

1023 4 5 4 2 1

1061 8 2 5 3 5

1084 11 14 12 13 12

1131 3 3 3 5 3

1153 6 1 1 1 2

1165 4 9 10 9 9

1171 3 11 14 12 13

1315 2 7 6 6 6

1354 3 4 2 4 4

3865 5 15 15 14 14

3924 20 12 11 11 11

3930 11 8 8 8 10

3949 7 13 13 15 15

3966 9 6 7 7 7

Table 80: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 12 10 10 8

1023 4 2 3 3 2

1061 8 5 5 5 5

1084 11 13 12 14 12

1131 3 3 2 2 3

1153 6 1 1 1 1

1165 4 11 13 12 11

1171 3 14 14 13 14

1315 2 9 6 6 6

1354 3 6 4 4 4

3865 5 15 15 15 15

3924 20 8 9 9 9

3930 11 7 8 8 10

3949 7 10 11 11 13

3966 9 4 7 7 7

144

Table 81: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set III

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

993 9 6 10 10 9

1023 4 2 1 2 1

1061 8 11 8 8 7

1084 11 15 14 15 14

1131 3 7 3 3 3

1153 6 1 2 1 2

1165 4 3 4 4 6

1171 3 13 15 14 13

1315 2 8 6 7 4

1354 3 5 5 5 5

3865 5 14 13 13 12

3924 20 9 11 12 11

3930 11 4 7 6 10

3949 7 10 12 11 15

3966 9 12 9 9 8

Table 82: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 1877.61 1876.01 1844.72 1860.85

1341 9 1785.57 1766.81 1790.64 1781.36

1360 5 1869.67 1827.19 1812.26 1845.41

1363 9 1759.04 1712.03 1768.75 1793.57

1434 6 1768.13 1748.93 1788.43 1796.92

1437 5 1861.90 1863.78 1822.44 1856.17

1446 6 1740.92 1535.25 1721.34 1730.12

1451 11 1839.36 1881.38 1839.74 1899.66

1506 7 1878.93 1932.67 1850.13 1878.60

1538 7 1690.84 1599.73 1735.02 1743.18

4071 11 1845.93 1895.41 1847.66 1875.07

4090 5 1805.40 1813.24 1808.62 1845.71

4124 11 1879.10 1987.58 1886.86 1907.14

4188 8 1844.69 1851.14 1823.21 1841.94

145

Table 83: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 6.44 6.274 6.265 6.292

1341 9 6.54 6.416 6.315 6.295

1360 5 6.38 6.295 6.264 6.351

1363 9 6.12 5.871 6.108 6.156

1434 6 6.04 6.234 6.248 6.252

1437 5 6.23 6.409 6.294 6.386

1446 6 6.09 5.653 6.076 6.076

1451 11 6.32 6.475 6.347 6.429

1506 7 6.41 6.644 6.380 6.471

1538 7 6.06 5.641 6.054 6.037

4071 12 6.39 6.419 6.326 6.393

4090 6 6.11 6.076 6.201 6.305

4124 11 6.55 6.705 6.444 6.490

4188 8 6.40 6.428 6.315 6.358

Table- 84: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 6.49 6.559 6.602 6.611

1341 9 6.84 7.207 6.870 6.889

1360 5 6.86 6.649 6.652 6.716

1363 9 6.17 6.007 6.401 6.406

1434 6 6.33 6.041 6.465 6.423

1437 5 6.68 6.649 6.652 6.714

1446 6 6.58 6.299 6.545 6.540

1451 11 6.87 7.112 6.853 6.994

1506 7 7.05 7.314 6.877 6.971

1538 7 6.19 6.287 6.529 6.475

4071 12 6.95 6.900 6.766 6.801

4090 6 6.46 6.449 6.591 6.694

4124 11 6.46 6.589 6.625 6.606

4188 8 6.93 7.082 6.811 6.829

146

Table 85: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 3 5 4 5

1341 9 10 10 10 12

1360 5 4 8 8 8

1363 9 12 12 12 11

1434 6 11 11 11 10

1437 5 5 6 7 6

1446 6 13 14 14 14

1451 11 8 4 5 2

1506 7 2 2 2 3

1538 7 14 13 13 13

4071 12 6 3 3 4

4090 6 9 9 9 7

4124 11 1 1 1 1

4188 8 7 7 6 9

Table 86: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 3 9 8 10

1341 9 2 6 6 9

1360 5 7 8 9 7

1363 9 10 12 12 12

1434 6 14 10 10 11

1437 5 9 7 7 5

1446 6 12 13 13 13

1451 11 8 3 3 3

1506 7 4 2 2 2

1538 7 13 14 14 14

4071 12 6 5 4 4

4090 6 11 11 11 8

4124 11 1 1 1 1

4188 8 5 4 5 6

147

Table 87: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set IV

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1319 18 9 9 9 9

1341 9 6 2 2 3

1360 5 5 6 6 6

1363 9 14 14 14 14

1434 6 12 13 13 13

1437 5 7 7 7 7

1446 6 8 11 11 11

1451 11 4 3 3 1

1506 7 1 1 1 2

1538 7 13 12 12 12

4071 12 2 5 5 5

4090 6 10 10 10 8

4124 11 11 8 8 10

4188 8 3 4 4 4

Table 88: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 16 1698.30 1606.34 1639.82 1728.66

1491 3 1845.40 1858.24 1812.67 1848.07

1524 12 1582.08 1397.44 1488.84 1630.40

1536 7 1773.69 1662.35 1700.60 1789.89

1555 6 1814.47 1728.62 1745.61 1800.28

1573 6 1770.92 1696.25 1725.42 1790.09

1641 6 1849.36 1928.14 1870.00 1862.63

1666 8 1814.41 1844.92 1822.41 1842.65

1749 3 1668.29 1112.59 1469.09 1698.94

1798 6 1825.06 1836.85 1813.08 1838.57

4244 11 1917.02 1986.76 1931.93 1888.87

4245 9 1806.05 1775.85 1775.22 1803.98

4371 22 1992.27 2049.70 2005.23 1963.15

4393 12 2016.81 2154.16 2061.76 2011.21

4395 12 1900.86 1967.68 1920.57 1933.16

148

Table 89: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 16 5.86 5.791 5.891 6.097

1491 3 6.48 6.306 6.265 6.367

1524 12 5.66 5.078 5.394 5.808

1536 7 6.25 5.804 5.968 6.224

1555 6 6.39 6.361 6.309 6.351

1573 6 6.38 6.399 6.332 6.419

1641 6 6.46 6.539 6.414 6.472

1666 8 6.18 6.122 6.162 6.265

1749 3 6.01 4.683 5.580 6.043

1798 6 6.46 6.479 6.379 6.461

4244 11 6.92 7.033 6.803 6.653

4245 9 6.35 6.174 6.194 6.319

4371 22 6.77 6.821 6.714 6.620

4393 12 6.91 7.237 6.964 6.844

4395 12 6.66 6.706 6.578 6.656

Table- 90: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 15 6.08 5.384 5.692 5.788

1491 3 6.83 6.606 6.636 6.670

1524 11 6.19 5.682 5.969 5.952

1536 7 6.68 6.428 6.517 6.570

1555 6 6.91 7.174 6.957 6.799

1573 6 6.67 6.911 6.804 6.786

1641 6 7.01 7.521 7.158 6.945

1666 8 6.69 6.688 6.677 6.688

1749 3 6.12 4.133 5.610 6.176

1798 6 7.19 8.066 7.473 7.149

4244 11 6.69 6.722 6.703 6.702

4245 9 6.54 6.433 6.508 6.633

4371 22 7.21 7.564 7.393 7.233

4393 12 7.18 7.566 7.313 7.136

4395 12 6.87 6.986 6.895 6.854

149

Table 91: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 16 13 13 13 13

1491 3 6 6 8 6

1524 12 15 15 14 15

1536 7 11 11 12 12

1555 6 8 8 10 10

1573 6 12 12 11 11

1641 6 5 5 5 5

1666 8 9 9 6 7

1749 3 14 14 15 14

1798 6 7 7 7 8

4244 11 3 3 3 4

4245 9 10 10 9 9

4371 22 2 2 2 2

4393 12 1 1 1 1

4395 12 4 4 4 3

Table 92: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 16 14 13 13 13

1491 3 5 9 9 8

1524 12 15 14 15 15

1536 7 11 12 12 12

1555 6 8 8 8 9

1573 6 9 7 7 7

1641 6 6 5 5 5

1666 8 12 11 11 11

1749 3 13 15 14 14

1798 6 7 6 6 6

4244 11 1 2 2 3

4245 9 10 10 10 10

4371 22 3 3 3 4

4393 12 2 1 1 1

4395 12 4 4 4 2

150

Table 93: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set V

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1485 16 15 14 14 15

1491 3 7 10 10 10

1524 12 13 13 13 14

1536 7 10 12 11 12

1555 6 5 5 5 6

1573 6 11 7 7 7

1641 6 4 4 4 4

1666 8 8 9 9 9

1749 3 14 15 15 13

1798 6 2 1 1 2

4244 11 9 8 8 8

4245 9 12 11 12 11

4371 22 1 3 2 1

4393 12 3 2 3 3

4395 12 6 6 6 5

Table 94: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 10 1854.29 1711.06 1745.96 1735.45

1153 20 2058.11 2052.78 1996.02 1981.79

1667 7 1809.11 1725.09 1761.51 1788.69

1706 2 1825.60 1385.27 1688.37 1710.75

1713 3 1801.47 1565.52 1718.75 1819.02

1717 4 1902.87 1986.79 1887.29 1905.32

1836 8 1904.69 1896.06 1861.35 1875.61

1922 15 1861.91 1866.10 1850.37 1867.70

1933 14 1943.20 1999.51 1944.37 1925.69

1944 5 1834.13 1697.68 1754.63 1728.86

2028 7 1798.28 1715.73 1756.19 1825.39

4506 10 1901.46 2060.26 1971.47 1949.13

4523 10 1891.99 1939.03 1893.18 1906.24

4619 5 1935.78 2164.39 1983.81 1951.98

4637 4 1807.19 1628.58 1730.21 1716.71

4640 7 1722.97 1559.44 1667.26 1739.52

151

Table 95: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 10 6.38 6.101 6.151 6.095

1153 20 6.78 6.901 6.751 6.719

1667 7 6.05 5.794 5.986 6.058

1706 2 6.28 4.885 5.85 5.925

1713 3 6.33 5.756 6.061 6.302

1717 4 6.59 6.952 6.559 6.565

1836 8 6.58 6.511 6.406 6.457

1922 15 6.42 6.374 6.338 6.397

1933 14 6.57 6.587 6.489 6.499

1944 5 6.23 5.673 5.961 5.957

2028 7 6.08 5.712 5.939 6.176

4506 10 6.47 6.882 6.660 6.623

4523 10 6.68 6.989 6.729 6.684

4619 5 6.68 7.361 6.800 6.696

4637 4 6.27 5.635 5.974 5.967

4640 7 6.17 5.812 5.996 6.183

Table 96: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 9 7.04 6.972 6.957 6.459

1153 20 7.36 7.356 7.207 7.249

1667 7 7.09 7.035 6.982 6.956

1706 2 6.94 5.784 6.739 6.575

1713 3 6.85 6.433 6.821 6.950

1717 4 7.27 7.699 7.167 7.215

1836 8 7.13 7.317 7.110 7.122

1922 15 6.95 6.877 6.905 6.931

1933 14 7.14 7.332 7.164 7.179

1944 5 6.85 6.533 6.804 6.633

2028 7 6.50 5.872 6.500 6.614

4506 10 7.16 7.775 7.355 7.409

4523 10 7.13 7.574 7.256 7.312

4619 5 7.10 7.537 7.146 7.211

4637 4 6.96 6.759 6.889 6.715

4640 7 6.76 6.242 6.653 6.764

152

Table 97: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 10 9 11 12 13

1153 20 1 3 1 1

1667 7 12 9 9 11

1706 2 11 16 15 16

1713 3 14 14 14 10

1717 4 5 5 6 6

1836 8 4 7 7 7

1922 15 8 8 8 8

1933 14 2 4 4 4

1944 5 10 12 11 14

2028 7 15 10 10 9

4506 10 6 2 3 3

4523 10 7 6 5 5

4619 5 3 1 2 2

4637 4 13 13 13 15

4640 7 16 15 16 12

Table 98: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 10 9 9 9 12

1153 20 1 4 2 1

1667 7 16 11 12 13

1706 2 11 16 16 16

1713 3 10 12 10 9

1717 4 4 3 5 5

1836 8 5 7 7 7

1922 15 8 8 8 8

1933 14 6 6 6 6

1944 5 13 14 14 15

2028 7 15 13 15 11

4506 10 7 5 4 4

4523 10 2 2 3 3

4619 5 3 1 1 2

4637 4 12 15 13 14

4640 7 14 10 11 10

153

Table 99: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set VI

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1135 10 9 9 9 16

1153 20 1 5 3 3

1667 7 8 8 8 8

1706 2 12 16 14 15

1713 3 13 13 12 9

1717 4 2 2 4 4

1836 8 5 7 7 7

1922 15 11 10 10 10

1933 14 4 6 5 6

1944 5 14 12 13 13

2028 7 16 15 16 14

4506 10 3 1 1 1

4523 10 6 3 2 2

4619 5 7 4 6 5

4637 4 10 11 11 12

4640 7 15 14 15 11

Table 100: Breeding Values of bulls for 305MY using in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 18 1828.89 1868.08 1854.43 1861.04

1727 8 1760.97 1641.95 1730.96 1749.87

1746 13 1744.78 1727.76 1764.96 1780.19

1749 8 1914.33 1924.39 1876.36 1921.59

1796 6 2001.54 2238.69 2011.05 2022.61

2121 4 1767.81 1527.19 1718.64 1735.16

2133 3 1755.94 1321.32 1675.39 1709.76

2184 13 1884.24 1938.23 1895.25 1899.06

2331 6 1877.85 1976.84 1893.43 1909.69

2363 13 1873.92 1894.96 1868.46 1864.92

4807 9 1846.18 1876.91 1853.27 1848.93

4915 17 1925.74 1968.46 1921.27 1934.11

154

Table 101: Breeding Values of bulls for 305WA in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 18 6.54 6.795 6.682 6.669

1727 8 6.19 6.112 6.241 6.272

1746 13 6.18 5.996 6.136 6.221

1749 8 7.18 7.443 6.980 7.046

1796 6 7.06 7.655 7.015 7.065

2121 4 6.28 5.780 6.156 6.185

2133 3 6.04 4.683 5.831 6.032

2184 13 6.54 6.473 6.449 6.492

2331 6 6.41 6.516 6.458 6.499

2363 13 6.31 6.280 6.322 6.316

4807 9 6.38 6.400 6.401 6.402

4915 17 6.90 6.701 6.613 6.619

Table 102: Breeding Values of bulls for TD6MY in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 17 7.12 7.345 7.204 6.886

1727 7 6.97 7.098 7.067 6.603

1746 13 6.63 6.666 6.872 6.734

1749 7 7.21 7.195 7.099 6.730

1796 6 7.57 8.338 7.442 7.463

2121 4 6.83 6.497 6.924 6.687

2133 3 6.85 5.489 6.763 6.557

2184 13 7.01 7.191 7.116 7.002

2331 6 7.30 7.551 7.203 7.258

2363 13 6.84 6.835 6.951 6.862

4807 9 7.00 7.224 7.118 7.011

4915 17 7.17 7.185 7.121 7.151

155

Table 103: Ranking of bulls for 305MY in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 18 8 8 7 7

1727 8 10 10 10 10

1746 13 12 9 9 9

1749 8 3 5 5 3

1796 6 1 1 1 1

2121 4 9 11 11 11

2133 3 11 12 12 12

2184 13 4 4 3 5

2331 6 5 2 4 4

2363 13 6 6 6 6

4807 9 7 7 8 8

4915 17 2 3 2 2

Table 104: Ranking of bulls for 305WA in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 18 4 3 3 3

1727 8 10 9 9 9

1746 13 11 10 11 10

1749 8 1 2 2 2

1796 6 2 1 1 1

2121 4 9 11 10 11

2133 3 12 12 12 12

2184 13 5 6 6 6

2331 6 6 5 5 5

2363 13 8 8 8 8

4807 9 7 7 7 7

4915 17 3 4 4 4

156

Table 105: Ranking of bulls for TD6MY in Set VII

Bull No. No. of


SRLS

Method

BLUP

Method

1419 18 5 3 2 6

1727 8 8 8 8 11

1746 13 12 10 11 8

1749 8 3 5 7 9

1796 6 1 1 1 1

2121 4 11 11 10 10

2133 3 9 12 12 12

2184 13 6 6 6 5

2331 6 2 2 3 2

2363 13 10 9 9 7

4807 9 7 4 5 4

4915 17 4 7 4 3

4.7 Effectiveness of Sire Evaluation Methods for Murrah bulls

Ranking of Murrah bulls based on Expected Breeding Values (EBVs) for single trait

such as first lactation 305-days or less milk yield, first lactation test day 6 milk yield, and first

lactation 305-days wet average were assessed by Spearman’s rank correlations using two

methods together at a time out of four sire evaluation methods viz., contemporary comparison

(CC), Least-squares (LS), simple regressed least-squares (SRLS) and Best Linear Unbiased

Prediction (BLUP) methods and presented in Table-106 to 108. The significance of rank

correlations was tested.Similar ranking pattern was found using three different traits viz.,

305MY, 305WA and TD6MY. Using CC method rank correlation between rank of bulls

obtained by using 305MY and TD6MY as sire evaluation criteria was found significant in

set I, set III, set V, set VI and set VII (Table-110). For other three methods (LS, SRLS and

BLUP) rank correlation between these two traits was found significant in all the seven sets

except set II with SRLS method and set IV with BLUP method (Table-110). This indicates

that all the three traits were found similar for evaluation of bulls.

Four sire evaluation methods (CC, LS, SRLS and BLUP) were used to test whether

there were any differences among different method in ranking of bulls. Three traits viz.,

157

305MY, 305WA and TD6MY were taken in each of four sire evaluation methods

simultaneously. The finding shows that rank correlations among all the four methods based

on EBVs for 305MY were significant in all the seven sets (Table-106). Similar finding were

obtained for rank correlations between different methods based on EBVs for 305WA and for

TD6MY (Table-107 and 108). It was inferred that four methods were found similar for

evaluation of bulls. However CCM was found most acceptable for estimating the EBVs for

305MY, 305WA and TD6MY.

Table 106: Spearman’s Rank Correlations between methods (CC, LS, SRLS and BLUP)

based on EBVs for 305MY

Spearman’s Rank correlation Method

1

Method

2 Set I Set II Set III Set IV Set V Set VI Set VII

CC LS 0.927** 0.944** 0.943** 0.895** 1** 0.844** 0.902**

CC SRLS 0.973** 0.979** 0.957** 0.908** 0.961** 0.871** 0.923**

CC BLUP 0.991** 0.979** 0.911** 0.829** 0.975** 0.768** 0.937**

LS SRLS 0.955** 0.930** 0.950** 0.991** 0.961** 0.982** 0.972**

LS BLUP 0.936** 0.930** 0.954** 0.956** 0.975** 0.926** 0.958**

SRLS BLUP 0.991** 1** 0.965** 0.930** 0.982** 0.923** 0.978**



based on EBVs for 305WA


1

Method


CC LS 0.836** 0.913** 0.936** 0.758** 0.947** 0.844** 0.958**

CC SRLS 0.909** 0.948** 0.939** 0.771** 0.950** 0.894** 0.972**

CC BLUP 0.909** 0.874** 0.896** 0.622* 0.946** 0.853** 0.958**

LS SRLS 0.955** 0.979** 0.989** 0.991** 0.996** 0.964** 0.993**

LS BLUP 0.936** 0.855** 0.968** 0.934** 0.982** 0.935** 1.000**

SRLS BLUP 0.982** 0.947** 0.964** 0.930** 0.986** 0.953** 0.993**


158


based on EBVs for TD6MY


1

Method


CC LS 0.927** 0.895** 0.857** 0.895** 0.929** 0.897** 0.860**

CC SRLS 0.927** 0.937** 0.879** 0.895** 0.943** 0.938** 0.853**

CC BLUP 0.891** 0.937** 0.725** 0.899** 0.936** 0.794** 0.678*

LS SRLS 0.927** 0.972** 0.986** 1.000** 0.993** 0.968** 0.937**

LS BLUP 0.900** 0.832** 0.939** 0.969** 0.975** 0.871** 0.790**

SRLS BLUP 0.955** 0.916** 0.904** 0.969** 0.979** 0.879** 0.839**


Table 109: Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305MY and 305WA using different

methods


Set I Set II Set III Set IV Set V Set VI Set VII

CC 0.918** 0.825** 0.868** 0.745** 0.950** 0.867** 0.895**

LS 0.964** 0.895** 0.957** 0.881** 0.921** 0.870** 0.811**

SRLS 0.991** 0.818** 0.918** 0.899** 0.907** 0.844** 0.825**

BLUP 0.982** 0.860** 0.972** 0.885** 0.914** 0.961** 0.895**


Table 110: Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305MY and TD6MY using different

methods



CC 0.882** 0.566 0.578* 0.478 0.828** 0.862** 0.811**

LS 0.873** 0.594* 0.857** 0.631* 0.775** 0.888** 0.762**

SRLS 0.855** 0.531 0.839** 0.618* 0.757** 0.850** 0.755**

BLUP 0.918** 0.608* 0.95** 0.473 0.779** 0.861** 0.783**


159

Table 111: Spearman’s Rank correlation between 305WA and TD6MY using different

methods



CC 0.809** 0.566 0.582* 0.468 0.739** 0.785** 0.839**

LS 0.845** 0.657* 0.792** 0.798** 0.850** 0.879** 0.867**

SRLS 0.873** 0.650* 0.821** 0.780** 0.829** 0.871** 0.874**

BLUP 0.864** 0.706* 0.892** 0.674** 0.843** 0.870** 0.652*


4.8 Impact of Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement

Set-wise comparison between all daughters produced in a set and daughters produced

out of proven bulls of that particular set for reproduction and production traits of Murrah

buffalo were analysed. Under Network Project of Murrah buffalo Improvement major

emphasis was given to increase milk production. As a result in all the sets the performance of

milk production traits of daughters of proven bulls was much higher than overall average of

daughters of each set. Reproduction traits were not considered as major traits under Network

Project of Murrah buffalo Improvement. As a result performance of reproduction traits were

not found consistent (Table 112 to 118).

Table 112: Comparative first lactation reproductive and productive trait performance

of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set I

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average

Total No. of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 118 46.16 20 44.02

FSP 95 186.74 15 191.6

305MY 118 1769.5 20 1798.7

TMY 118 1971.9 20 2063.1

305WA 118 6.12 20 6.19

OWA 118 5.75 20 5.99

*Age at first calving, first service period and milk yields are in months, days and kg, respectively

160


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set II

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average

Total No. of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 115 43.72 21 44.48

FSP 94 198.08 17 210.88

305MY 115 1797.61 21 1838.81

TMY 115 1958.97 21 2094.15

305WA 115 6.22 21 6.25

OWA 115 5.90 21 5.79



of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set III

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average

Total No. of daughters of

Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 113 45.78 11 44.63

FSP 94 213.83 9 215

305MY 113 1724.93 11 2013

TMY 113 1884.8 11 2218

305WA 113 5.95 11 6.73

OWA 113 5.63 11 6.03



of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set IV

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average


Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 121 46.4 17 44.71

FSP 95 242.65 13 238.15

305MY 121 1725.26 17 1891.06

TMY 121 1924.74 17 2083.82

305WA 121 6.00 17 6.58

OWA 121 5.70 17 6.25


161


of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set V

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average


Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 141 42.11 31 44.38

FSP 99 159.41 25 138.6

305MY 141 1768.76 31 2033.65

TMY 141 1897.81 31 2206.9

305WA 141 6.25 31 6.89

OWA 141 6.00 31 6.6



of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set VI

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average


Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 131 43.29 30 43.25

FSP 71 200.99 13 260.23

305MY 131 1817.53 30 2005.73

TMY 131 1958.67 30 2225.67

305WA 131 6.28 30 6.76

OWA 131 5.99 30 6.44



of whole daughters and daughters produced by proven bull in Set VII

Trait Total No. of

daughters

All daughters

average


Proven Bulls

Average of

daughters of

Proven Bulls

AFC 126 43.11 24 42.22

FSP 80 218.98 18 186.67

305MY 126 1808.2 24 1995.6

TMY 126 1982.2 24 2168.7

305WA 126 6.34 24 6.90

OWA 126 6.05 24 6.63


162

46.15

43.97

46.36

41.70

43.00

45.66

43.23

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47


Set

AF

C (

mo

nth

s)

Figure 10: Set-wise AFC of Murrah buffalo

242.04

190.95

196.10

214.89 160.30 212.40

202.92

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Set

FS

P (

days)

Figure 11: Set-wise FSP of Murrah buffalo

163

1774.42

1797.84

1727.78

1772.28

1813.08

1812.50

1722.79

1660

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820


Set

FL

305M

Y (

kg

)

Figure 12: Set-wise 305MY of Murrah buffalo

1957.93

1885.52

1931.23

1901.79

1988.25

1992.74

1972.28

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020


Set

FL

TM

Y (

kg

)

Figure 13: Set-wise TMY of Murrah buffalo

164

6.11

6.23

6.03

6.37

6.27

6.27

5.99

5.8

5.9

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4


Set

FL

305W

A (

kg

)

Figure 14: Set-wise 305WA of Murrah buffalo

Set-wise and bull-wise average performance of daughters of proven bulls in different

centres was also studied. Seven sets were evaluated and out of 14 bulls declared proven 5, 4,

4 and 1 bulls were from NDRI-Karnal, CIRB-Hisar, GADVASU-Luhhiana and CCSHAU-

Hisar centre, respectively. A comparative study was done to see the average performance of

daughters of proven bulls from one particular centre in other centres too.

Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of NDRI, Karnal centre was

2084 kg, 1695.94 kg, 1969.88 kg and 1893.33 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar;

GADVASU, Luhhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar centres, respectively. Average performance

(305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of CIRB, Hisar centre was 1948 kg, 1811.79 kg and

2075.18 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar; GADVASU, Luhhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar

centres, respectively. Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of

GADVASU, Luhhiana centre was1923.50 kg 1898.45 kg and 2046 kg at NDRI, Karnal;

CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU, Luhhiana centres, respectively. Average performance

(305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of CCSHAU, Hisar centre was 2471 kg, 1789 kg, 2469

kg and 2102 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar; GADVASU, Luhhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar

centres, respectively (Table-119). Irrespective of use of proven bulls in different centre the

overall performance of daughters in GADVASU, Luhhiana centre was found to be better for

305MY (Table-119 and Figure-15). Although number of daughters in CCSHAU, Hisar centre

was very less, this centre showed better performance for AFC followed by NDRI, Karnal

165

(Table-120 and Figure-16). On the other hand NDRI, Karnal centre showed better

performance for FSP followed by GADVASU, Luhhiana centre (Table 121 and Figure-17).

Table 119: Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls from one

centre, performed in different centres

Centre Total bulls

selected NDRI CIRB GADVASU CCSHAU

NDRI 5 2084 (51) 1696 (17) 1970 (9) 1893(3)

CIRB 4 1948 (6) 1812 (19) 2075 (11) -

GADVASU 4 1923 (6) 1898 (11) 2046 (10) -

CCSHAU 1 2471 (1) 1789 (10) 2469 (3) 2102 (7)

* Figure in parenthesis is number of daughters

Table 120: Average performance (AFC) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre,


Centre

Total

bulls

selected

NDRI CIRB GADVASU CCSHAU

NDRI 5 42.81 (50) 48.15 (17) 42.14 (9) 38.74 (3)

CIRB 4 43.65 (6) 47.89 (18) 43.82 (11) -

GADVASU 4 39.48 (6) 49.28 (11) 39.63 (10) -

CCSHAU 1 35.45 (1) 47.53 (10) 46.50 (3) 33.64 (7)

* Figure in parenthesis is number of daughters

Table 121: Average performance (FSP) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre,


Centre Total bulls

selected NDRI CIRB GADVASU

NDRI 5 162.7 (42) 238.4 (11) 99.2 (5)

CIRB 4 159.3 (6) 186.5 (15) 267.2 (5)

GADVASU 4 196.8 (5) 268.3 (7) 236.2 (9)

CCSHAU 1 76.0(1) 296.8 (5) 236.0 (3)

* Figure in parenthesis is number of daughters **FSP of daughters of proven bulls at CCSHAU, Hisar

were not available.

166

2084

1696

1970 189319481812

20751924 1898

2046

2471

1789

2469

2102

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Centre

FL

305M

Y (

kg

)

NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

CCSHAU

Figure 15: Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls from one

centre, performed in different centres

42.8

48.2

42.138.7

43.7

47.943.8

39.5

49.3

39.635.5

47.5 46.5

33.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Centre

AF

C (

mo

nth

s)

NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

CCSHAU

Figure 16: Average performance (AFC) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre,


167

162.76

238.45

99.20

186.55

267.20

196.80

268.28

236.20

76.00

296.80

159.33

236.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NDRI CIRB GADVASU

Centre

FS

P (

days) NDRI

CIRB

GADVASU

CCSHAU

Figure 17: Average performance (FSP) of daughters of proven bulls from one centre,


4.8.1 Impact of genetic gain on Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement

The overall annual genetic gain for 305MY under Network Project on Murrah buffalo

Improvement was found to be highest 0.78 per cent in set III and lowest value was 0.10 per

cent in set II. In contributing centres highest annual genetic gain showed by NDRI, Karnal

and GADVASU, Ludhiana and value was 0.82 per cent for both. Lowest annual genetic gain

showed by GADVASU, Ludhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar and the value was -0.03 per cent for

both (Table 122).

Table 122: Overall and centre-wise highest and lowest annual genetic gain for 305MY

Centre Highest annual

genetic gain Set No.

Lowest annual

genetic gain Set No.

Overall 0.78 % III 0.10 % II

NDRI 0.82 % VI -0.01 % I

CIRB 0.49 % IV -0.01 % II

GADVASU 0.82 % V -0.03 % II

CCSHAU 0.16 % VII -0.03 % VI

4.8.2 Impact of breeding value of bulls on Network Project on Murrah buffalo

Improvement

Set-wise average breeding values of test bulls for 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY were

estimated (Table 123 to 125). There was no set-wise improvement found for 305MY while

168

clear cut improvement was seen for 305WA and TD6MY as there is weightage for number of

days in milk for these two traits. So 305WA and TD6MY should be the better parameter to

evaluate bulls.

Table 123: Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for 305 MY

Set No. CC Method LS Method SRLS Method BLUP Method

I 1851.67 1840.33 1843.62 1856.12

II 1826.87 1863.67 1855.78 1843.41

III 1815.16 1860.65 1852.43 1840.36

IV 1817.65 1806.51 1809.99 1832.55

V 1818.33 1773.72 1785.48 1828.70

VI 1865.82 1809.58 1825.67 1839.21

VII 1848.52 1825.39 1838.62 1853.08

Table 124: Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for 305 WA


I 6.25 6.22 6.24 6.26

II 6.29 6.34 6.32 6.29

III 6.26 6.29 6.28 6.25

IV 6.29 6.25 6.26 6.31

V 6.38 6.24 6.26 6.37

VI 6.41 6.25 6.29 6.33

VII 6.50 6.40 6.44 6.48

Table 125: Set-wise average breeding value of bulls for TD 6MY


I 6.70 6.70 6.74 6.73

II 6.71 6.84 6.81 6.84

III 6.77 6.88 6.87 6.73

IV 6.63 6.65 6.66 6.69

V 6.72 6.66 6.69 6.67

VI 7.01 6.94 6.98 6.96

VII 7.04 7.05 7.07 6.91

169

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study was conducted on the performance records of Murrah buffalo with

the following objectives: (i) to estimate centre-wise and overall genetic gain for milk

production in Murrah buffaloes under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement, (ii) to

estimate and compare the breeding values of Murrah bulls through different methods using

first lactation monthly test day and 305 days milk yield, and (iii) to assess the overall impact

of progeny testing programme under Network Project on Murrah buffalo Improvement. The

data on first lactation traits of 832 Murrah buffaloes sired by 95 bulls, spread over a

period of 14 years from 1995 to 2008, were collected from the history-cum-pedigree sheets

and milk yield registers of Murrah buffalo maintained in four centres of Network Project on

Murrah buffalo Improvement. Information from Set I to Set VII was collected from NDRI,

Karnal; CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU, Ludhiana. Information of Set VI and Set VII was

collected from CCSHAU, Hisar. The data were classified into 14 years. Based on the

calving pattern, each year was divided into two seasons viz., least calving season (January

to June) and most calving season (July to December). The effect of season, year and

centre were studied by least-squares analysis. Paternal half-sib correlation method

was used to estimate the heritability of different traits and genetic and phenotypic

correlations among them. The traits considered were age at first calving (AFC), first

lactation 305 days or less milk yield (305MY), first lactation total milk yield (TMY), first

service period (FSP), first lactation monthly test day milk yield (TDMY), first lactation 305

days wet average (305WA) and overall wet average (OWA). It was observed that TD6MY

(155DIM) milk yield had the highest genetic (0.99±0.04) and phenotypic (0.78±0.02)

correlation with 305MY in Murrah buffaloes.

The overall average AFC, FSP, 305MY, TMY, 305WA and OWA of Murrah

buffaloes using pooled data was estimated as 44.14 ± 0.23 months, 202.27 ± 5.36 days,

1775.39 ± 17.17 kg, 1947.08 ± 22.86 kg, 6.18 ± 0.05 kg and 5.87 ± 0.05 kg, respectively. The

overall least-squares means using pooled data for AFC, FSP, 305MY, TMY, 305WA and OWA

was estimated as 43.69 ±0.46 months, 223.17 ± 20.40 days, 1846.86 ± 35.94 kg, 2034.88 ±

47.97 kg 6.34 ± 0.10 kg and 5.98 ± 0.09 kg, respectively. Farm (centre) had significant effect

on AFC, FSP, 305MY, TMY, FLL, 305WA, OWA and all the TDMY. Year of calving had

significant effect on AFC, OWA, TD1MY, TD3MY, TD4MY, TD5MY, TD8MY and

TD11MY.

170

The Expected Breeding Values (EBVs) of Murrah bulls at CIRB, Hisar; NDRI, Karnal

and GADVASU, Ludhiana from first to seventh set, and CCSHAU, Hisar from sixth and

seventh set under Network Project on Buffalo Improvement were estimated for 305MY,

305WA and TD6MY. The EBVs were estimated using contemporary comparison (CC),

Least-squares (LS), simple regressed least-squares (SRLS) and Best Linear Unbiased

Prediction (BLUP) methods and Spearman’s rank correlations were used for ranking of

Murrah bulls based on EBV for 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY by using two traits together

for each method and two methods together for each trait. The significance of rank

correlations was tested.

Set-wise expected genetic gain was estimated for each centre as well for the overall

pooled data. Heritability for first lactation 305 days milk yield and first lactation 305 days

wet average were estimated as 0.22 and 0.24. Generation interval was estimated as the

average age of the parents in a particular set. In the initial sets the generation interval was a

bit higher but in subsequent sets it was found the generation interval was less. Using pooled

information, the overall expected genetic gain per generation for first lactation 305 days milk

yield was found maximum (63.38 kg) in set III.

The average annual expected genetic gain for 305MY was estimated as 0.45 % over

the sets. Similar trend was found for first lactation 305 days wet average. The overall

maximum annual expected genetic gain for first lactation 305 days milk yield was found

13.51 kg (0.78%) in set III, while minimum annual expected genetic gain for the same trait

was found as 1.87 kg (0.10 %) in set II. Centre-wise highest annual expected genetic gain

was obtained about 0.82% i.e. 15.96 kg in NDRI, Karnal (set VI) and 14.53 kg in

GADVASU, Ludhiana (set V) while the same was found lowest as -0.03% i.e. -0.60 kg in

GADVASU, Ludhiana (set II) and -0.58 kg in CCSHAU, Hisar (set VI). There was no

uniform trend of genetic gain observed in the initial sets, however the rate of change in

genetic gain was found uniform in subsequent sets. One of the reasons behind this trend is

that there was differential herd size of buffaloes in different centres.

All the bulls were ranked based on their estimated EBV. Based on ranking of bulls

using CC method, it was observed that in set I, bull number 3098 obtained the highest rank

with EBV of 1959.58 kg for first lactation 305 days or less milk yield followed by bull

number 3108 with EBV of 1954.11 kg. On the basis of EBV of first lactation 305 days wet

average, bull number 3108 was first in rank followed by bull number 896. Using EBV of

TD6MY (155th

day), bull number 3206 achieved first rank followed by bull number 3108. In

171

set II using CC method bull number 829 obtained top ranking based on EBV for first

lactation 305 days milk yield and first lactation 305 days wet average. On the basis of EBV of

TD6MY, bull number 3638 ranked first. In set III using CC method bull number 1153

(CIRB) was ranked first using EBVs of all three traits viz., 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY. In

set IV using CC method bull number 4124 obtained top ranking based on EBV for 305MY

and 305WA. On the basis of EBV of TD6MY, bull number 1506 ranked first. In set V using

CC method bull number 4393, 4244 and 4371 was top ranked using EBV of 305MY,

305WA and TD6MY. In set VI using CC method bull number 1153 (CCSHAU) ranked first

using EBV of all three traits viz., 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY. In set VII using CC method

bull number 1796 obtained top ranking based on EBVs of 305MY and TD6MY. On the basis

of EBV of 305WA bull number 1749 ranked first. Apart from CC method, LS, SRLS and

BLUP methods were also used to estimate EBVs and not a single method gave the consistent

higher or lower estimate of EBVs. The ranking pattern of bulls was found similar using three

different traits viz., 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY. This indicates that all the three traits were

found similar for evaluation of bulls.

Four sire evaluation methods (CC, LS, SRLS and BLUP) were used to test whether

there were any differences of methods in ranking of bulls. Three traits viz., 305MY, 305WA

and TD6MY were taken in each of four sire evaluation methods simultaneously. The finding

shows that rank correlations among all the four methods based on EBVs for 305MY were

significant in all the seven sets. Similar finding were obtained for rank correlations between

different methods based on EBVs for 305WA and for TD6MY. It was inferred that four

methods were found similar for evaluation of bulls. However CC was found most acceptable

for estimating the EBVs for 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY.

Set-wise comparison of the performance of daughters produced in a set and daughters

produced out of proven bulls of that particular set for reproduction and production traits of

Murrah buffalo were analysed. Under Network Project of Murrah buffalo Improvement major

emphasis was given to increase milk production. As a result in all the sets the performance of

milk production traits of daughters of proven bulls were found much higher than average of

all daughters in each set. Reproduction traits were not considered as major traits under

Network Project of Murrah buffalo Improvement. As a result performance of reproduction

traits perhaps were not found consistent.

Set-wise and bull-wise average performance of daughters of proven bulls in different

centres were also studied. Seven sets were evaluated and out of 14 bulls declared proven of

172

which 5, 4, 4 and 1 bulls were from NDRI-Karnal, CIRB-Hisar, GADVASU-Luhhiana and

CCSHAU-Hisar centre, respectively. A comparative study was made to see the average

performance of daughters of proven bulls from one particular centre in other centres too.

Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of NDRI, Karnal centre was

2084 kg, 1695.94 kg, 1969.88 kg and 1893.33 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar;

GADVASU, Luhhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar centre, respectively. Average performance

(305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of CIRB, Hisar centre was 1948 kg, 1811.79 kg and

2075.18 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU, Luhhiana centre, respectively.

Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls of GADVASU, Luhhiana centre

was1923.50 kg 1898.45 kg and 2046 kg at NDRI, Karnal; CIRB, Hisar and GADVASU,

Luhhiana centre, respectively. Average performance (305MY) of daughters of proven bulls

of CCSHAU, Hisar centre was 2471 kg, 1789 kg, 2469 kg and 2102 kg at NDRI, Karnal;

CIRB, Hisar; GADVASU, Luhhiana and CCSHAU, Hisar centre, respectively. Irrespective

of use of proven bulls in different centres the overall performance of daughters in

GADVASU, Luhhiana centre was found to be better for 305MY. Although number of

daughters in CCSHAU, Hisar centre was very less, however the centre showed better

performance for AFC followed by NDRI, Karnal. On the other hand NDRI, Karnal centre

showed better performance for FSP followed by GADVASU, Luhhiana centre.

Based on the above study, the following conclusions have been drawn:

� The heritability estimates of most of the first lactation production traits were found

medium.

� The estimates of genetic and phenotypic correlations revealed that TD6MY and 305WA

were highly correlated with 305MY in Murrah buffalo.

� The overall average annual expected genetic gain for 305MY was found to be

approximately 0.45 per cent. Highest overall annual expected genetic gain observed was

0.78 per cent in set III.

� Centre-wise highest annual expected genetic gain (0.82%) was observed in NDRI,

Karnal (set VI) and GADVASU, Ludhiana (set V) while the same was found lowest

(-0.03%) in GADVASU, Ludhiana (set II) and CCSHAU, Hisar (set VI).

� The ranking of Murrah bulls based on their estimated EBVs were found almost similar

using 305MY, 305WA and TD6MY in each method (CC, LS, SRLS and BLUP).

� All the four sire evaluation methods were found similar for evaluation of breeding

Murrah bulls.

173

� Among CIRB, NDRI and GADVASU centres, the performance of GADVASU centre

for 305MY, TMY and 305WA was found better followed by NDRI, Karnal and CIRB

centre.

� For reproduction traits (AFC and FSP) the performance was found better in NDRI and

GADVASU centre. NDRI centre however had marginally better performance over

GADVASU centre for first service period.

� Genetic impact study revealed that production performance of daughters of proven bulls

in each set was found superior than the average of all daughters performance in each set.

Recommendations:

1. Measure should be taken to select the number of test bulls ensuring the availability of

breedable female in different centres.

2. Semen should be distributed at a particular period to obtain even number of daughters

in all the centres.

3. Similar feeding and management practices should be adopted in all the centres to

reduce the genotype × environment interaction.

4. Recording of information should be uniform in all the centres.

5. Reproduction trait (first service period) along with the production trait (TD6MY)

should be included for genetic evaluation of Murrah bulls.

6. Contemporary comparison method should continue to evaluate Murrah bulls under

Network Project on Buffalo Improvement.

i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alim, K.A. 1953. Studies on the Egyptian Buffaloes. I. selection for milk yield. Canadian

J. Agri. Sci., 33: 606-610.

Annual Report, 2009-2010. National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal India.

Anonymous, 2008. 18th

Livestock Census All India Report, DAHD&F, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India.

Anonymous, 2011. Economic Survey. Govt. of India.

Banik, S. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of different characters of Murrah buffaloes – A

path analysis approach. M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Banik, S. 2004. Sire evaluation in Sahiwal cattle. Ph.D Thesis, NDRI (Deemed

University), Karnal, India.

Banik, S. and Tomar, S.S. 2002. Path analysis of 305 days milk yield in Murrah

buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 55(6):346-349.

Basavaiah, P.1978. Genetic studies of lactation Curve and its use in sire evaluation in

Murrah buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, Punjab University, Chandigarh.

Becker, W.A. 1975. Manual of quantitative genetics, Third Edition, Washington State

Univ. Pullman, 99163, USA.

Catillo, G., Macciotta, N. P. P., Carretta, A. and Cappio-Borlino,A., 2002. Effect of age

and calving season on lactation curves of milk production traits in Italian water

buffaloes. J. Dairy Sci. 85: 1298-1306.

Chakravarty, A.K. and Rathi, S.S. 1986. Genetic responses in lactational efficiency traits

through progeny testing in Murrah buffaloes. H.A.U.J. Res., 16(2):105-109.

Chakraborty, D. 2008. Genetic studies on production efficiency attributes in Murrah

buffaloes. M.VSc. Thesis, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.

Chander, R. 2002. Prediction of breeding value of sires for life time performance traits in

Murrah buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar,

India.

Chourasia, S.K., Singh, A. and Dhingra, M.M. 1985. Studies on first calving interval in

Murrah buffaloes. Livestock Advisor, 10(9): 25-28.

ii

Cordovi, J., Guerra, D. and Menendez, A. 1986. A study of evaluation of Holstein

Friesian bulls. Revista de Reproduction Animal, 12: 17. (Cited: Anim. Breed.

Absr. 55: 6546).

Cunningham, E.P. 1965. The evaluation of sires from progeny test data. Anim. Prod.

7:221-231.

Dass, G.1995. Studies on prediction of lactation yield based on test-day values in

buffaloes. Ph.D thesis, NDRI. Karnal

Dass, G. and Sharma, R.C. 1994. Factors affecting milk production in Murrah buffaloes.

Ind. J. Anim. Res., 28: 61-64

Dhara, S.K. 1994. Prediction of breeding value of milk production by multiple regression

and principal component analysis in Murrah buffaloes. M.Sc. Thesis, National

Dairy Research Institute., Karnal, Haryana, India.

Dutt, G., and Yadav, M.C. 1988. Evaluation of the reproductive performance of Murrah

buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 41: 8-11.

Dutt, T.; Bhushan, B and Kumar, S. 2001. First lactation and lifetime performance traits

in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 71(5): 483-484.

Edwards, A. W. F. 1972. Likelihood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K

El-Arian. 1986. Genetic analysis of Murrah buffalo herd. Ph.D.Thesis, Kurukshetra

University, Kurukshetra (India).

FAO. 2008. Animal Genetics Resources Information.

Fisher R.A. 1921. On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Phil. Trans.R.

Soc. Lond. A:222, 309-368.

Gajbhiye, P.U. 1987. Evolving restricted indices for selection of buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis,

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

Gajbhiye, P.U. and Tripathi, V.N. 1999. Effect of season, period and age at first calving

on first lactation traits in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 52: 199-203.

Gandhi, R.S. and Gurnani, M. 1991. Accuracy of different methods of sire evaluation in

Sahiwal cattle. Indian Vet. J., 6(7): 659-662.

Gandhi, R.S. 2002. Evolving multi-trait criteria in Murrah buffaloes. Buffalo J. 2:183-

192.

iii

Garcha, D.S. and Dev, D.S. 1994. Factors affecting milk yield performance of crossbred

cattle under field condition of Punjab. J. Dairying, Food and Home Sci., 13:48-52.

Gaur, G.K., Tripathi, V.N., Mukherjee, S. and Chaudhary, V. K. 2001. Efficiency of sire

evaluation procedures in Frieswal cattle. Indian J. Vet. Res., 10(2): 1-6.

Geetha, E. 2005. Studies on breeding values for persistency in Murrah buffaloes. M.Sc.

Thesis, NDRI Deemed University, Karnal (Haryana), India.

Geetha, E., Chakravarty, A.K. and and Vinaya, K.K. 2007. Estimates of genetic

parameters using random regression test day model for first lactation milk yield in

Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 77(9):898-901.

Gill, G.S. and Parmar, O.S.1988. Genetic merit of Red Dane bulls used in crossbreeding

project. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 58(7): 811-813.

Godara, A. (2003). Genetic studies on performance traits in different lactation of Murrah

buffaloes. M.Sc. Thesis, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.

Gogoi, P.K., Johar, K.S. and Singh, A. 1985. Genetic analysis of milk yield in Murrah

buffaloes. Indian Vet. J., 62: 1058-1062.

Gokhale, S.B. (1974). Inheritance of part lactation and their use in selection among

Murrah buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, Agra University, Agra, India.

Gupta, B.D., Kaushik, S.N. and Mishra, R.R. 1994. Studies on reproduction efficiency

parameters of Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 47(4): 257-264.

Gupta, J.P., 2009. Evolving selection criteria using growth and production traits in

Murrah buffaloes. M.V.Sc. Thesis N.D.R.I., Karnal.

Gurnani, M. and Nagarcenkar, R. 1977. Measurement of genetic change in economic

traits of dairy animals. Annual Report, N.D.R.I., Karnal, Haryana, India. pp. 106-

108.

Gurnani, M. and Nagarcenkar, R. 1982. Comparison of breeding value of sires by

Henderson’s BLUP and Robertson’s method. In: II World Cong. Genetics

Applied to Livestock Prod., Madrid, Spain, October 4-8, 1982.

Gurnani, M.; Nagarcenkar, R.; Gupta, S.K 1972. Evaluation of breeding performance of

buffaloes and estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameter. Annual Report,

N.D.R.I., Karnal, India, pp. 109-110.

iv

Haggar, C. and Dempfle, L. 1981. What can be gained by the BLUP procedure under

various circumstances? Paper 32nd Annual Meeting of The European Association

for Anim. Prod., VI (18): 6. (cited from Anim. Breed. Abstr., 50: 2993).

Harvey, W.R. 1966. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass number.

U.S.D.A., IOWA.

Harvey, W.R. 1979. Accuracy of simplified regressed least-squares (SRLS) vs. BLUP

for ranking sires. Indian J. Anim. Genet. Breed.1(1):7-19.

Harvey, W.R. 1987. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. ARS

H-4, USDA, Washington D.C.

Hatwar, R.K. and Chawla, D.S. 1988. Least-squares means of various first lactation traits

and milk constituents of Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 58: 988-990

Henderson, C.R. 1973. Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Proc. Anim. Breed. And

Genetics Symposium in honor of Dr. J.L. Lush, pp.10-14. American Soc. Anim.

Sci. Assoc. Champaign, Illinois.

Henderson, C.R. 1974. General flexibility of linear model technique for sire evaluation. J.

Dairy Sci., 57(8): 963-972.

Henderson, C.R. 1975a. Use of relationship among sires to increase accuracy of sire

evaluation. J. Dairy Sci., 58(11): 1731-1738.

Henderson, C.R. 1975b.Use of all relatives in intra-herd prediction breeding values and

producing ability. J. Dairy Sci., 58(12): 1910-1916.

Henderson, C.R. 1976. Multitrait sire evaluation using the relationship matrix. J. Dairy

Sci., 59(4); 769-774.

Henderson, C.R. and Quaas, R.L. 1976. Multiple trait evaluation using relatives’ records.

J. Anim. Sci., 43: 1188-1197.

Ipe, Sosamma and Nagarcenkar, R. 1992. Estimation of heritabilities and correlations of

partial and 300 days first lactation milk yield in Murrah buffaloes. J. Dairying,

Food & Home Sci., 11: 43-49.

Jain, A. 1996. Sire evaluation under multiple traits models in Murrah buffaloes. Ph.D.

Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana.

v

Jain, A. and Sadana, D.K. 1998. Effect of genetic and non-genetic factors on first

lactation traits in Murrah buffaloes using alternate models. Indian J. Anim. Sci.

68(9):950-953.

Jain, A. and Sadana, D.K. 2000. Sire evaluation using animal model and conventional

methods in Murrah buffaloes. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 13(9):1196-1200.

Jain, A. and Taneja, V.K. 1982. Effect of non-genetic factors on reproduction and

production traits in Murrah buffaloes. Asian J. Dairy Res., 1: 123-129.

Jain, J.P. and Malhotra, J.C. 1971. Comparative study of different methods of indexing

sires. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 41: 1101-1108.

Johnson, L.A. and Corley, E.L. 1961. Heritability and repeatability of first, second, third

and fourth records of varying duration in Brown Swiss cattle. J.Dairy Sci., 44:

535.

Johri, D.C. and Bhat, P.N. 1979. Effect of genetic and non-genetic factors on

reproductive traits in buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 49:484-491.

Jamrozik, J. and Schaeffer, L.R. 1997. Estimates of genetic parameters for a test day

model with random regressions for yield traits of first lactation Holsteins. J.

Dairy. Sci., 80 (4): 762-770.

Kabat, S. and Zarneeki, A. 1980. Estimating breeding value of bulls using least squares

and maximum likelihood methods. Proc. of 31st Annual Meeting, European

Association for animal production. (Cited: Anim. Breed. Abstr., 48: 1083).

Kandasamy, N., Ulaganathan, V. and Krishnan, A.R. (1991). Genetic analysis of milk

yield per day of second calving of Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 44: 519-

521.

Katneni, V.K. 2007. Studies on genetic persistency of milk production in Murrah

buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Khosla, S. K., Gill, S. S. and Malhotra, P. K. 1984. Effect of some non-genetic factor on

age at first calving and service period in herd book registered Murrah buffaloes

under village conditions. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 54:407-412.

Kramer, C.Y. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means.

Biometrics, 13: 13-18.

vi

Kumar, B. 1984. Index method of sire evaluation in buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra

University, Kurukshetra (India).

Kumar Rajendra and Bhat, P.N. 1978. A note on factors affecting the shape of lactation

curve in buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 48(8): 608-610.

Kumar, A. and Bhatnagar, D.S. 1989. Estimation of sire index by different methods and

its efficiency in Karan Swiss herd of cattle.Indian J. Anim. Sci., 59(6): 731-732.

Kumar, D., Singh, H. and Singh, C.V. (2000). Genetic studies on different components of

milk production efficiency in Murrah Buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 70: 82-85.

Kumar, A., Rana, Z.S., Dhaka, S.S., Dalal, D.S., Singh, S. and Sethi, R.K. 2002. Test day

yield and lactation parameters of Murrah buffaloes. Proceedings of seventh

WCGALP, Montpellier, pp:1-3

Kuralkar, S.V. and Raheja, K.L. 1997. Relationship among early performance, lifetime

production and reproduction traits in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci.

67(9): 798-801.

Mukherjee, S., Joshi, B.K. and Gaur , G.K. 2007. Comparison of sire evaluation methods

In Friewal cattle. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 77(8):773-776.

Narasimharao, A.V. and Sreemannarayana, O. 1994. The relationship between calving

to conception interval and milk production in Murrah buffaloes. Indian Vet. J.,

71: 619-620.

Nath, M. 1996. Evalution of breeding value in Murrah buffaloes by various methods.

M.Sc. Thesis, NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Nawale, V.S. 2010, Development of optimum model for prediction and assessment of

Breeding efficiency in Murrah buffaloes. M.V.Sc. Thesis, NDRI (Deemed

University), Karnal, India.

Parekh, H.K.B., Singh, V.K. and Rao, K.C. 1994. Comparative study of different sire

evaluation procedures under two models using crossbred progeny. Indian J.

Anim. Sci., 64 (10): 1070-1074.

Parmar, O.S. and Dev, D.S. 1985. Genetic gain in milk yield through progeny testing of

buffalo bulls. J. Res. P.A.U., 22: 99-104.

Patil C.S. 2011. Genetic evaluation of fertility in Murrah buffalo. M.V.Sc. Thesis, NDRI

(Deemed University), Karnal, India.

vii

Porwal, M.L., Singh. M.P. And Karandikar, G.W. 1981. Studies on reproductive

performance of Murrah buffaloes. Indian Vet. J. 58: 295-299.

Prakash, A., Tripathi, V.N., and Tomar, S.S. 1989. Genetic analysis of reproductive traits

in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 61(40): 411-415.

Raheja, K.L. 1992. Comparison of progeny testing of Sahiwal sires by the different

methods of sire evaluation. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 45(2): 64-69.

Rakshe, P.T. 2003. Effect of age at first calving and subsequent period of breeding on the

performance of buffaloes from College of Agriculture. Pune. (MS), India. Buffalo

Bulletin. 22(1): 7-11.

Ramesh, J., Krishnamurthy, G.M. and Narasaiiah Naidu, K. 1988. Prediction of milk

production in Murrah buffaloes from performance records upto first service

period. Proc. II world buffalo congress., pp: 110-113.

Rana, J. 2008. Genetic evaluation of Murrah buffalo sires based on part lactation and test

day milk yield records. Ph.D. Thesis, Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut

(UP).

Rana, Z.S., Dalal, D.S., Sangwan, M.L. and Malik, C.P. 2002. Performance status of

Murrah buffaloes for first lactation traits- a review. Proceedings of 7th

World

Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France,

August, 2002 Session 7. 0-3.

Rao, D.S. and Sharma, J.S. 1985. Effect of non-genetic factors on weakly milk

production in Murrah buffaloes. Livestock Adviser, 10(9): 304-310.

Reddy, C.E. 1980. Genetic analysis of breeding records of buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis,

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (India).

Reddy, K.M. and Mishra, R.R. 1980. Effect of age at first calving on lactation

components and calving distribution in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 33:

347-350

Robertson, A. and Rendel, J.M. 1954. The performance of heifers got by artificial

insemination. J. Agri. Sci., 44 : 184-192.

Saha, S. 1998. Studies on breeding efficiency in buffaloes. M.Sc. Thesis, National Dairy

Research Institute (Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Sahana, G. 1993. Association between productive and reproductive traits in Murrah

viii

buffaloes. M.Sc. Thesis, National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University),

Karnal, India.

Sahana, G. 1996. Effectiveness of sire evaluation methods for milk production along with

auxiliary traits vis-à-vis other methods in crossbred cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, NDRI

(Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Searle, S.R. 1963. Genetic studies of dairy production early in lactation. J. Dairy Sci., 46:

1266.

Shabade, N.S., Jagtap, D.Z. and Behla, N.D. 1993. Factors affecting production and

production efficiency traits of first lactation in Murrah Buffaloes. Indian J.

Anim. Sci., 63:1212-1213

Sharma, A. 1982. Breeding and Selection Methods for maximizing profit function in

buffaloes. Ph.D. Thesis, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

Sharma, R.C. and Singh, B.P. 1988. Genetic studies on Murrah buffaloes in Livestock

farms in Uttar Pradesh. Proc. II- World buffalo congress, Dec., 1988, pp: 128-133.

Sheoron, N., Sangwal, M.L., Dalal, D.S. and Sethi, R.K. 2002. Effect of genetic and non-

genetic factors on economic traits in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J.Vet.Res. 11(2):

13-20.

Singh, B.P., Kumar, V. and Chauhan, V.P.S. 1992. Comparison of different methods of

sire evaluation. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 62(7): 749-753.

Singh, C.V. and Yadav, M.C. 1987. A genetic study on part lactation production

in Indian biffaloes. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 57: 154-157.

Singh, D. and Basu, S.B. 1988. Genetic parameters for first lactation traits in Murrah

buffaloes. Indian Vet. J., 65: 593-598.

Singh, S. 2006. Genetic evaluation of Karan Fries sires on the basis of part lactation milk

yield. M.V.Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Deemed University, Karnal, India.

Singh, S.S., Rathi, S.S. and Sangwan, M.L. 1990. Environmental variances affecting

production efficiency in Murrah buffaloes. Buffalo J., 6: 105-112.

Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1994. Statistical Methods. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co.,

New Delhi, India, Reprinted, 1975.

Steel, R.G.D and Torrie, J.H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics with special

reference to the biological sciences. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.

ix

Sundaresan, D., Gurnani, M. and Sindhu, S.P. 1965a. Evaluation of breeding value of

bulls used in two herds in India. J. Dairy Sci., 48(11): 1498-1505.

Sundaresan, D., Puri, T.R. and Gurnani, M. 1965b . Methods of sire evaluation for milk

production on Indian farms. J. Dairy Sci., 48 (11): 1494-1497.

Suresh, R., Bidarkar, D.K. Gupta, B. R., Sudharkarrao, B and Sudhakar,K. (2004).

Production and reproduction performance of Murrah buffaloes. Indian J. Animal.

Sci. 74(8):854-857.

Swain, S.N. and Bhatnagar, D.S. 1983. Reproduction and production traits in Murrah

buffaloes. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 36: 382-386.

Swiger, L.A., Harvey, W.R., Everson, D.O. and Gregory, K.E. 1964. The variance of

interclass correlation involving groups with one observations. Biometrics, 20:

818-826.

Tailor, S.P., Banerjee, A.K. and Yadav, S.B.S. 2000. Comparison of different methods of

sire evaluation. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 70(1): 73-74.

Tajane, K.R. and Rai, A.V. 1990. Efficiency of sire evaluation methods to improve milk

yield of Sahiwal x Holstein-Friesian cattle. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 60(1); 183-191.

Tein, N.Q. and Tripathi, V.N. 1990. Genetic parameters of body weight at different ages

and first lactation traits in Murrah buffaloes. Indian Vet. J., 67:821-825.

Tomar, S.S. and Tripathi, V.N. 1988. Standardization of data on lactation performance of

Murrah buffaloes affected by various diseases. Indian J. Dairy sci., 41: 244-246.

Tomar, S.S. and Tripathi, V.N. 1989. Effect of weaning on performance of Murrah

buffaloes female calves. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 48: 340-342.

Van-Vleck, L.D.1987. Contemporary groups of genetic evaluation. J. Dairy Sci., 70(11):

2456-2464.

Vij, P.K. and Tiwana, M.S. 1987. Phenotypic and genetic parameters of some

reproduction traits in buffaloes. Asian J. Dairy Res., 6: 159-166.

Wakchaure, R.S. 2007. Estimation of correction factors using time series analysis in

Murrah buffaloes. M.V.Sc. Thesis, NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal, India.

Wakchaure, R.S., Sachdeva, G.K. and Gandhi, R.S. 2008. Comparison of heritability

Estimates from time series and least squares adjustment in Murrah buffalo. Indian

J. Anim. Sci. 78(10):1159-1161.

x

Yadav, B.S., Yadav, M.C., Khan, F.H. and Singh, A. 2002. Murrah buffaloes- II. First

lactation yield and first lactation period. Buffalo bulletin, 21(3):51-54.

Yadav, B.S., Yadav, M.C., Singh, A. and Khan, F.H. 2003. Study of economic traits in

Murrah buffaloes. Dept. of Anim. Prod. Mgnt. College of Vet. Sci. and A.H.,

Mhow (M.P.), India.

Yadav, K.N., Rathi, S.S., Ram, S. and Singh, R. 1983. Estimation of genetic and

phenotypic trends in Murrah buffaloes under progeny testing programme. Indian

J. Dairy Sci., 36: 330-332.

Yadav, K.V. and Rathi, S.S. 1983. Reproduction profiles of Murrah buffaloes under

progeny testing programme. Int. J. Trop. Agric., 1: 253-258.

genetic impact of progeny testing programme under network project ...

Documents

Transcript of genetic impact of progeny testing programme under network project ...