Agr. Nat. Resour.

54 (2020) 463–470

AGRICULTURE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Journal homepage: http://anres.kasetsart.org

Research article

Impact of selection based on mature equivalent body weight of buffalo

bulls and cows on calf body weight at different ages in Thanh-Chuong
district, Nghe-An province, Vietnam
Gioi Pham Van*, Hoang Tran Thi Minh, Son Pham Van
Animal Genetics and Breeding Department, National Institute of Animal Science, Hanoi11913, Vietnam

Article Info Abstract

Article history: The objectives of this research were to assess the impact of buffalo bull and cow selection on
Received 8 July 2020
calf body weight at different ages from birth to age 12 mth. In total, 916 buffaloes (18 bulls,
Revised 11 August 2020
Accepted 23 August 2020 370 cows, and 528 calves) were used from 334 households in Thanh-Chuong district, Nghe-An
Available online 30 October 2020 province, Vietnam. Calves were weighed at birth and the weight of growing calves was estimated
based on technical measurements of chest girth and body length. Data were analyzed using
Keywords: a generalized linear model. The results indicated that selection of buffalo bulls and cows based
Body weight,
on mature equivalent weight (MEW) strongly influenced calf weight from birth to age 12 mth.
Mature equivalent weight,
Selection group, Buffalo bull selection influenced calf weight by from 20.27% to 53.94%, and weight variation
Swamp buffaloes of calves accounted for 12.00% to 22.24%. When buffalo bulls and cows were simultaneously
selected, calf weight variation was highest (from 40.86% to 75.49%). When the MEW of buffalo
bulls increased by 100 kg, the body weight of calves from birth to age 12 mth increased by
4.02–32.87 kg. When the MEW of buffalo cows increased by 100 kg, the body weight from birth
to age 12 mth of calves increased by 1.97–26.71 kg. When the MEW of both buffalo bulls and
cows increased by 100 kg, the body weight of calves from birth to age 12 mth increased by
5.39–48.76 kg. Selection of the bull increased calf weight more than the cow selection and the
combined selection of the bull and cow increased calf weight the most for the different ages
considered.

Introduction performance of calves depends on the genetic merit from both sires
and dams, with each parent contributing 50% of the genetic material.
Buffalo development has special advantages compared to other The availability of the best genotyped bulls is a fundamental requirement
grazing livestock as they may more efficiently utilize and convert to boost genetic gains (García-Ruiz et al., 2016; Selokar, 2018). Genetically
nutritionally poor forage and feeds into beef and milk, they are more superior bulls that able to produce large numbers of progeny in a breeding
environmentally well-adapted and they can contribute to social and cultural program play an important role (Dahiya and Singh, 2013) and thus,
aspects (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, proper bull selection is the most rapid way to make genetic improvements
2000; Kandeepan et al., 2009; Marai and Habeeb, 2010; da Luz et al., to the herd. Performance testing provides valuable information that can be
2013; Hamid et al., 2017). As with other livestock breeding, the used to select superior breeding animals (Sanjeet and Sushant, 2017).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]. (Gioi P.V.)

online 2452-316X print 2468-1458/Copyright © 2020. This is an open access article, production and hosting by Kasetsart University of Research and Development institute on
behalf of Kasetsart University.

https://doi.org/10.34044/j.anres.2020.54.5.01
464 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470

In Vietnam, the population size of (swamp) buffaloes has where BW is the estimated body weight, HG is the measurement
gradually declined by 1.8% annually and consequently, a suitable of heart girth and BL is the body length with both determined using
solution is required to maintain numbers (Department of Livestock a technical tape and 88.4 is the standard coefficient for Vietnamese
Production, 2019). There are several buffalo breeding zones in swamp buffaloes.
Vietnam, but buffaloes raised in Thanh-Chuong district, Nghe-An
province are regarded as a rare genetic resource, especially regarding Groupings of bulls and cows
reproductive performance (Gioi et al., 2018a). However, farmers are
rarely interested in their choices of bulls for mating with their cows Grouping of stud bulls: Buffalo bulls were assigned into two
and heifers and to date, there has been little mention of mating of groups (large and small) based on the MEW, adjusted to body weight
bulls and females based on their body weights and on the impact on at age 8 yr when the bulls reached peak body weight, adjusted by the
the weight of their progeny. The objective of this research was to coefficient based on actual variability in bull weights in the population
determine the efficiency of buffalo bull and cow selection based on (Table 1).
the mature equivalent weight (MEW) on the body weight of calves at The actual weight was converted to the mature equivalent weight
different ages. MEW (body weight at age 8 yr) based on Equation 2:

Materials and Methods MEW = BWa × AC (2)

Animals Where, MEW is the mature equivalent body weight or peak body
weight (body weight at age 8 yr), BWa is the actual body weight at
Based on the records from 334 households from January 2015 the specified age at the time of measurement and AC is the adjusted
to December 2017, 916 buffaloes were selected, of which 18 were coefficient (Table 1).
stud breeding bulls for natural mating, 370 were buffalo cows and After being adjusted for body weight, stud bulls were divided
528 were growing buffalo calves were born these bulls and cows. into two groups based on MEW: small = buffalo bulls with low body
All these buffaloes were in the controlled natural mating system in weights (MEW ≤ 500 kg) and big = buffalo bulls with high body
Thanh-Chuong district, Nghe-An province, a coastal zone of Vietnam. weights (MEW > 500 kg).

Mating management Grouping of cows

The buffalo cows were divided into two groups (small and big),
All the stud buffalo bulls and cows were observed in a controlled based on body weight after having been adjusted to MEW or peak
mating system. All stud bulls were managed by their respective weight (body weight at fifth parity), converted to MEW (body weight
owners, and when females were detected to be in oestrous, they were at age 8 yr) based on Equation 3:
brought to the specific stud bulls for natural mating. Females who did
not become pregnant were represented to the bulls again until they MEW = BWa × AC (3)
were successfully impregnated
where MEW is the mature equivalent body weight or peak body
Estimation of body weight for bulls and cows weight (body weight at fifth parity), Bwa is the actual body weight at
the measured parity and AC is the adjusted coefficient (Table 1).
The body weights of bulls and reproductive cows (1–1.5 mth after After adjustment for body weight, the cows were divided into two
calving) were estimated using a linear measurements of heart girth and groups based on MEW: small = buffalo cows with low body weights
body length based on the formula described by Thac et al. (2006), as (MEW less than or equal to the overall mean) and big = buffalo cows
shown in Equation 1: with high body weights (MEW greater than the overall mean).
The descriptive statistics based on MEW from groups are
BW = HG2 × BL × 88.4 (1) presented in Table 2.

Table 1 Adjusted coefficients for body weight of bulls and cows according to various age classes
Parities Actual body weight of beast for various age classes and parities Age (yr) Adjusted Adjusted age for
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum coefficient bulls and cows (yr)
1 63 364 49 283 516 3.42 1.159 3 to < 4
2 61 394 48 285 540 4.62 1.073 4 to < 5
3 105 407 61 274 615 5.83 1.037 5 to < 6
4 73 408 58 292 602 6.97 1.035 6 to < 7
5 45 422 61 303 577 8.18 1.000 7 to < 9
6 39 412 67 292 570 9.39 1.024 9 to <10
7+ 42 401 59 260 571 10.59 1.052 Over 10
 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470 465

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of mature equivalent body weight for stud bulls and cows in two sizes
Grouping by sex Size N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Stud bulls Small 9 456.49 20.83 420 484
Big 9 562.40 32.20 520 612
Cows Small 231 379.74 31.37 273 422
Big 197 472.07 45.35 424 638

Data collection on calf growth Yij = µ + Gi + eij (6)

Neonatal calves were weighed on scales to determine their body
weights. The body weights of growing calves were determined using a where Yij is the body weight in different research periods of the
linear measurement with a technical tape and was estimated based on jth buffalo calf born from the ith bull or cow selection group, Gi is the
Equation 1 from Thac et al. (2006). The calf data calves were gathered random effect of the ith bull or cow selection group (i=2 for big size
2–4 times a year. and I = 1 for small size) and eij is the random residual error, N∼(0,σ2e).
The body weight at a specific period of the closest stage was The percentage of variance component of bulls, cows or bulls and of
imputed using a method of International Committee for Animal the bulls and cows combined groups was determined using Equations
Recording (2020) for different ages: birth weight and at ages 3 mth, 7–9:
6 mth, 9 mth and 12 mth weights. Adjustments were made based
on Equation 4 according to International Committee for Animal Variance (Bulls) (7)
H%Bulls = × 100%
Recording (2020): Variance (Bulls) + Variance (Errors)

Variance (Cows)
WG – BW H%Cows = × 100% (8)
P= × RA + BW (4) Variance (Cows) + Variance (Errors)
AW
where P is the calf body weight in the research periods (ages
Variance (Bulls + Cows)
3 mth, 6 mth, 9 mth and 12 mth), WG is the calf body weight at H%(Bulls + Cows) = × 100% (9)
Variance (Bulls + Cows) + Variance (Errors)
measurement, BW is the average calf birth weight, AW is the calf age
at weighing and RA is the research age, for the age period in days— 90 where H%Bulls is the percentage of the bull group variance in the
d (3 mth), 180 d (6 mth), 270 d (9 mth) and 360 d (12 mth). total variance, H%Cows is the percentage of the cow group variance in
the total variance, and H%(Bulls + Cow)is the percentage of bull and cow
Data analysis group variance in the total variance.
To determine the influence level of bulls and cows when their
The dataset was prepared in the Excel 2013 software package body weights were increased by 100 kg, linear single and multiple
(Microsoft Corp; Redmond, CA, USA). The SAS9.0 software (SAS variable equations were applied using ‘Proc Reg’ in SAS9.0 based
Institute Inc., 2002) was used for data analysis with ‘Proc means’ used on Equation 10:
for computation of basic statistical parameters and ‘Proc GLM’ was
applied for major data analysis and to compare differences among Yij = a + b(X) + eij (10)
least square means.
Body weight traits on calves for different research periods were where Yij is the calf body weight in the research period, a is an
analyzed using ‘Proc GLM’ in SAS9.0, as shown in Equation 5: intercept, b is a slope, X is the mature equivalent body weight of
bulls or cows divided by 100 kg and eij is the random residual error,
Yijk = µ + BGi + CGj + (BG×CG)ij + eijk (5) N (0, σe2).
To determine the influence level of the bull and cow combined
where, Yij is the body weight in the different research periods of group when their body weights were both increased by 100 kg, the
the kth buffalo calf, born from the ith bulls group and jth cows group, same approach was adopted as for Equation 10, using in Equation 11:
BGi is the fixed effect of the ith bulls group (i=2: for big size and small
size), CGj is the fixed effect of the jth cows group j (j=2 for big size Yij = a + b1(X1)+b2(X2) + eij (11)
and j = 1 for small size), (BG×CG)ij is the interaction between the ith
bulls group and the jth cows group and eijk: is the random residual error, where Yij is the calf body weight at different periods , a is an
N∼(0,σ2e). intercept, b1 is the slope on line representing bull MEW divided by 100
To determine the variance of the bull selection group, cow kg, b2 is the slope on the line representing cow MEW divided by 100
selection group or the bull and cow combined group, ‘Proc Varcomp’ kg, X1 is the bull MEW divided by 100 kg, X2 is the cow MEW divided
and the MIVQUE method in SAS9.0 were used for estimation of the by 100 kg and eij is the random residual error, N (0, σe2).
variance components in the model shown in Equation 6: Significant differences were tested at the (p < 0.05) level.
466 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470

Results and Discussion (25.97 ± 0.36 kg/calf). For the interaction between the two selection
groups of bulls and cows, those calves born from a mating couple
Impacts of bull and cow selection on calf body weight. of a big-sized bull and big-sized cow had an average body weight
of 30.02 ± 0.38 kg/calf that was largest for the groups. Calves born
The body weight traits of buffalo calves in the bull and cow from the mating of a big-sized bull and small-sized cow had an
selection groups from birth to age 12 mth are shown in Table 3. average body weight of 29.06 ± 0.42 kg/calf and calves born from
In the buffalo bull selection group, calves born from big-sized bulls a small-sized bull and big-sized cow had an average body weight
had an average body weight of 29.54 ± 0.28 kg/calf that was significantly of 27.85 ± 0.85 kg/calf, with the lowest body weight being for
(p < 0.05) higher than for calves born from small-sized bulls calves born from the mating of a small-sized bull and small-sized
(25.37 ± 0.52 kg/calf). Similarly, in the cow selection group, calves born cow with a mean body weight of 22.88 ± 0.60 kg/calf. Furthermore,
from big-sized cows had an average body weight of 28.93 ± 0.46 kg/calf the differences in body weight among these calf groups were
that was significantly higher than for calves born from small-sized cows significant.

Table 3 Least square means (LSM) of calf body weight traits from bull and cow selection groups at various ages
Traits Groups Categories N LSM±SE
W0 Bulls SS 39 25.37±0.52a
BS 118 29.54±0.28b
Cows SS 79 25.97±0.36a
BS 78 28.93±0.46b
Bulls×Cows SS×SS 26 22.88±0.60a
SS×BS 13 27.85±0.85b
BS×SS 53 29.06±0.42bc
BS×BS 65 30.02±0.38c
W3 Bulls SS 71 74.88±2.01a
BS 215 85.67±1.12b
Cows SS 156 74.42±1.44a
BS 130 86.14±1.79b
Bulls×Cows SS×SS 45 68.06±2.44a
SS×BS 26 81.71±3.20b
BS×SS 111 80.77±1.55b
BS×BS 104 90.56±1.60c
W6 Bulls SS 71 113.13±3.10a
BS 137 130.16±2.06b
Cows SS 117 112.20±2.26a
BS 91 131.09±2.95b
Bulls×Cows SS×SS 49 100.55±3.45a
SS×BS 22 125.71±5.14bc
BS×SS 68 123.85±2.93b
BS×BS 69 136.47±2.90c
W9 Bulls SS 48 144.06±5.69a
BS 123 168.64±3.23b
Cows SS 84 147.89±3.88a
BS 87 164.81±5.27b
Bulls×Cows SS×SS 35 131.65±5.92a
SS×BS 13 156.47±9.72b
BS×SS 49 164.13±5.01b
BS×BS 74 173.15±4.07b
W12 Bulls SS 66 177.27±6.06a
BS 129 210.41±4.28b
Cows SS 87 183.65±4.86a
BS 108 204.03±5.60b
Bulls×Cows SS×SS 46 162.23±6.67a
SS×BS 20 192.32±10.11b
BS×SS 41 205.07±7.06bc
BS×BS 88 215.75±4.82c
W0 = birth weight; W3 = weight at age 3 mth; W6 = weight at age 6 mth; W9 = weight at age 9 mth; W12 = weight at age 12 mth; SS = small size; BS = big size.
In the same trait and group, LSM values with different lowercase superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470 467

At age 3 mth, calves born from big-sized bulls were significantly weighed only 144.06 ± 5.69 kg/calf. Calves from big-sized cows
heavier at age 3 mth (W3) than calves born from small-sized bulls were significantly heavier (164.81 ± 5.27 kg/calf) than claves from
(85.67 ± 1.12 kg/calf and 74.88 ± 2.01 kg/calf, respectively). Calves born small-sized cows (147.89 ± 3.88 kg/calf). Similarly, calves born from
from big-sized cows were significantly heavier at W3 (86.14 ± 1.79 kg/ the mating of big-sized bulls and big-sized cows had the highest
calf) than calves born from small-sized cows (74.42 ± 1.44 kg/calf). body weight (173.15 ± 4.07 kg/calf), followed by calves born from
On the other hand, calves born from the mating of big-sized bulls and big-sized bulls and small-sized cows (164.13 ± 5.01 kg/calf), calves from
big-sized cows had the greatest value for W3 (90.56 ± 1.60 kg/calf), the mating of small-sized bulls and big-sized cows (156.47 ± 9.72 kg/
followed by calves born from the mating of small-sized bulls and calf) and the lowest W9 body weight was for calves born from
big-sized cows (81.71 ± 3.20 kg/calf) and then calves born from small-sized bulls and small-sized cows (131.65 ± 5.92 kg/calf).
big-sized bulls and small-sized cows (80.77 ± 1.55 kg/calf), with the The differences among these four groups were significant.
lowest weights for calves born from the mating of small-sized bulls The results for the weight at age 12 mth (W12) were also similar
and small-sized cows (68.06 ± 2.44 kg/calf). Differences at W3 among to the above Calves born from big-sized bulls had significantly higher
these four groups of calves were significant. weights (210.41 ± 4.28 kg/calf) than calves born from small-sized
The weight at age 6 mth (W6) of calves from the two selection bulls (177.27 ± 6.06 kg/calf). Calves born from big-sized cows had
groups of bulls and cows had relative differences, with calves sired from significantly higher weights (204.03 ± 5.60 kg/calf) than from small-sized
big-sized bulls weighing significantly more (130.16 ± 2.06 kg/calf) cows (183.65 ± 4.86 kg/calf). Calves born from big-sized bulls and
than calves sired from small-sized bulls (113.13 ± 3.10 kg/calf). big-sized cows had the highest weight (215.75 ± 4.82 kg/calf) followed
Calves born from the two groups of cows were also relatively different by calves born from big-sized bulls and small-sized cows (205.07 ± 7.06
at W6, with calves from big-sized cows weighing significantly more kg/calf) and then calves born from big-sized cows and small-sized bulls
(131.09±2.95 kg/calf) than calves born from small-sized cows (112.20 (192.32 ± 10.11 kg/calf), with the lowest weight being for calves born
± 2.26 kg/calf). Calves born from the mating of big-sized bulls and from small-sized bulls and small-sized cows (162.23 ± 6.67 kg/calf).
big-sized cows had the heaviest body weight (136.47 ± 2.90 kg/calf), The differences among these four groups were significant.
followed by the calves born from small-sized bulls and big-sized cows
(125.71 ± 5.14 kg/calf) and then calves born from big-sized bulls and Variance components of calf body weight traits by bull and cow
small-sized cows (123.85 ± 2.93 kg/calf), with the lowest body weight selection groups at various ages
being for calves born from small-sized bulls and small-sized cows
(100.55 ± 3.45 kg/calf). These differences at W6 among these groups Buffalo calves born from bull selection groups, cow selection
of calves were significant. groups or from an interaction between them showed differences in
The results for the weight at age 9 mth (W9) was similar to the body weights at various ages. However, the contribution efficiency
above. Calves born from big-sized bulls were significantly heavier provided further information on the relative weight gains for the
(168.64 ± 3.23 kg/calf), whereas calves born from small-sized bulls different mixes of parents and are provided in Table 4.

Table 4 Variance components of calf body weight by bull and cow groups
Selection groups of Variance components W0 W3 W6 W9 W12
bulls and cows and percentages (H%)
Bulls Groups Variance(Bulls) 12.55 74.76 232.10 467.90 816.72
Variance(Error) 10.72 294.09 649.64 1,261.70 2,106.60
Variance(Total) = 23.27 368.85 881.73 1,729.60 2,923.32
Variance(Bulls) +
Variance(Error)
H%Bulls 53.94% 20.27% 26.32% 27.05% 27.94%
Cows Groups Variance(Cows) 3.28 66.25 189.04 185.31 396.60
Variance(Error) 13.78 289.12 661.01 1,358.60 2,277.20
Variance(Total) = 17.06 355.38 850.05 1,543.91 2,673.80
Variance(Cows) +
Var(Error)
H%Cows 19.22% 18.64% 22.24% 12.00% 14.83%
Both Bulls and Cows Variance(Bulls and 25.20 249.48 634.86 836.02 1,398.70
Groups Cows)
Variance(Error) 8.18 233.32 592.53 1,189.30 2,024.80
Variance(Total) 33.39 482.80 1,227.39 2,025.32 34,23.50
= Variance(Bulls
and Cows) +
Variance(Error)
H%(Bulls + Cowa) 75.49% 51.67% 51.72% 41.28% 40.86%
W0 = birth weight; W3 = weight at age 3 mth; W6 = weight at age 6 mth; W9 = weight at age 9 mth; W12 = weight at age 12 mth; H% = percentage of selection
group variance in total variance component.
468 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470

At birth, based on MEW, bulls accounted for 53.94% of the total showed that when the MEW of both the bull and cow were increased
variation in calf body weight accounted for 53.94%, whereas, cow by 100 kg the bull contributed from 3.82 ± 0.47 kg at birth to 27.52 ±
selection accounted for 19.22% and when both bulls and cows were 5.46 kg at age 12 mth and accounted for 54.81% up to 70.87% of the
simultaneously selected, the contribution efficiency reached 75.49% calf weight. The contribution from the cow was from 1.57 ± 0.43 kg
for calf weight variation in the population. at birth to 21.24 ± 4.76 kg at age 12 mth and accounted for 29.13%
At age 3 mth, bull selection affected 20.27% of the total variation at birth up to 45.19% at age 3 mth, which was much lower than from
in calf body weight, cow selection was 18.64% and both bull and cow the bull (Table 5).
simultaneously had a contribution efficiency of 51.67% of the total Based on this research, selection based on the bull’s MEW usually
variation of calf body weight. had more influence than the cow’s MEW regarding calf body weight
At age 6 mth, bull selection accounted for 26.32% of the total at different ages from birth to age 12 mth.
variation in calf weight variation, cow selection influenced 22.24% In Vietnam, swamp buffaloes in Thanh-Chuong district were
and both bulls and cows simultaneously selected accounted for bigger than in some other regions. Local buffaloes in Ha-Giang,
51.72% of the variation in calf body weight. Viet-Nam had a birth weight in the range 23.23–22.18 kg, and at
At age 9 mth, bull selection accounted for 27.05% of the total age 12 mth in the range 148.1–144.5 kg in males and females (Sanh
variation of calf body weight, cows accounted for 12.00% and when et al., 2008). Swamp buffaloes in Ha-Noi had a reported birth
both bulls and cows were selected, they accounted for 41.28% of the weight range of 26.13–23.92 kg and age 12 mth of 155.6–147.91 kg
total variation of calf body weight. in males and females (Gioi et al., 2018b). Both these studies had
At age 12 mth, bull selection accounted for 27.94% of calf body weights much lower than in the current research. Compared to swamp
weight variation, cows selection influenced 14.83% and when both buffaloes in other countries, the birth weight of calves in the current
bulls and cows were selected, the weight variation accounted for research was higher than the birth weight of buffaloes (24.12–24.28 kg
40.86% of the total variation. in males and females) in Bangladesh (Karim et al., 2013), but a little
These findings indicated that bull selection influenced calf weight lower than for buffaloes (29.90–30.48 kg for males and 27.6–29.45 kg
variation from 20.27% to 53.94% and was usually higher than when for females) in Thailand (Na and Allen, 2000; Thevarnanoharan
cows were selected at different ages. The weight variation of calves et al., 2001).
only accounted for 12.00% to 22.24%. Selection of both the bull and The progeny generated from various buffalo bull and cow groups
cows had the highest range from 40.86% to 75.49%. in the current study had comparatively different body weights. At birth,
age 9 mth and age 12 mth, calves born from big-sized bulls had higher
Calf body weight traits when bull and cow MEW increased by 100 kg body weights than for calves born from big-sized cows. These results
may be explained by the inherent breeding potential of the bulls,
An increment of 100 kg in the MEW for the bull resulted in as the bull MEW on average was much higher than for a cow
a positive increase on calf MEW being 4.02 ± 0.49 kg at birth and (562.40 kg and 472.07 kg, respectively). However, the weights of
reaching a maximum increase of 32.87 ± 5.57 kg at age 12 mth. The calves at ages 3 mth and 6 mth, born from big-sized cows, were
weight increment increased with calf age Similarly, when the MEW negligibly higher than for calves born from big-sized bulls; this
for the cow increased by 100 kg, the weight of calves increased by phenomenon may be explained by big-sized cows perhaps lactating
1.97 ± 0.51 kg at birth to 26.71 ± 4.91 kg at age 12 mth. than the other cows, so that the calves born from big-sized cows
When the MEW was increased by 100 kg for both the bull and inherited a greater maternal environment effect than calves born
cow, the calf weight increased from 5.39 kg at birth to 48.76 kg at age from small-size cows. In the following periods (age 9 mth and
12 mth. Increments were much higher than when only the bull or the age 12 mth), when the calves were not affected by the maternal
cow had increased MEW by 100 kg. On the other hand, the results also environment effect anymore (that is in the grazing period), then

Table 5 Respective regression coefficient (b) ±SE of weight increment Efficiency of weight increment of calf when bull, cow or both increased their mature
equivalent weight by 100 kg
Selection group W0 W3 W6 W9 W12
Bull increment by 100 kg MEW 4.02±0.49 9.32±2.04 20.65±3.10 27.36±4.83 32.87±5.57
Cow increment by 100 kg MEW 1.97±0.51 7.68±1.66 14.53±2.90 18.03±4.11 26.71±4.91
Simultaneous increment Distribution from bulls (kg) 3.82±0.47 9.01±1.97 19.20±2.96 25.01±4.66 27.52±5.46
of bull and cow MEW Percentage of distribution 70.87% 54.81% 60.06% 61.78% 56.44%
by 100 kg from bulls (%)
Distribution from cows (kg) 1.57±0.43 7.43±1.60 12.77±2.66 15.47±3.83 21.24±4.76
Percentage of distribution 29.13% 45.19% 39.94% 38.22% 43.56%
from cows (%)
Total distribution (kg) 5.39 16.44 31.97 40.48 48.76
W0 = birth weight; W3 = weight at age 3 mth; W6 = weight at age 6 mth; W9 = weight at age 9 mth; W12 = weight at age 12 mth; MEW = mature equivalent weight
SE = standard error of respective regression coefficient
 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470 469

benefits were completely based on the breeding merit of the bull and Conflict of Interest
cow. Considering the different bull and cow groups from birth to age
12 mth, the ranking based on the body weight of the calves was often The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
in a definite order, namely that calves born from mating a big-sized
bull and big-sized cow usually had the highest weight, followed Acknowledgements
by calves born from mating big-sized bulls and small-sized cows,
then calves born from mating small-sized bulls and big-sized cows, The authors thank the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
and lastly from small-sized bulls and small-sized cows. However, Development for funding and financial support, the Board of the
during the period age 3 mth and age 6 mth, this order was changed, National Institute of Animal Science, officials in the Agricultural
with calves born from big-sized cows having a higher weight than Department in Nghe-An province and farmers in Thanh-Chuong
from small-sized cows, irrespective of the size of the bull. This district, Nghe-An province for their cooperation.
phenomenon may be explained by the combination of the maternal
environment effect and the cow’s breeding potential being higher than References
the inherent breeding potential of the bull. Thus, the bull’s impact
remained important and accounted for most of the calf weight. On the da Luz, P.A., Santos, P.R., Andrighetto, C., Jorge, A.M., de Assis Neto, A.C.
other hand, calves born from small-sized cows showed little weight 2013. The correlation between age, body weight and testicular parameters
in Murrah buffalo bulls raised in Brazil. J. Reprod. Dev. 59: 14–17. doi.
difference from calves born from small-sized bulls, although the
org/10.1262/jrd.2012-021
MEW of small-sized bulls (456.49 kg/bull) was much higher than
Department of Livestock Production. 2019. Report of actual situation of
the MEW of small-sized cows (379.74 kg/cow), the deviation is 76.75 kg, grazing livestock on period of 2016–2018 and development orientation
the difference in the MEW was nearly equivalent to the difference in 2019–2025. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Development of Grazing
the MEW between big-sized bulls and big-sized cows. This finding Livestock. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Hanoi,
showed that bulls below 500 kg did not contribute to incremental calf Vietnam, pp. 2–29. [in Vietnamese]
weight any more than small-sized cows with an MEW of 379.74 kg, Dahiya, S.S., Singh, P. 2013. Nutritional and other management practices
though the latter made a better contribution to calf weight than for optimum semen production in buffalo bulls. Buffalo Bull. 32: 277–284.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2000. Water buffalo:
small-sized bulls. Thus, bulls with MEW less than 500 kg should not
An asset undervalued. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
be selected for breeding.
Bangkok, Thailand.
The percentage of the bull selection group variance of the total García-Ruiz, A., Cole, J.B., VanRaden, P.M., Wiggans, G.R., Ruiz-López,
variance component was usually higher than from the cow selection F.J., Van Tassell, C.P. 2016. Changes in genetic selection differentials and
group, showing that the influence of bull selection was higher for generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle as a result of genomic
than of the cow. However, when a combination selection was applied selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113: E3995–E4004. doi: 10.1073/
(both bull and cow were selected), the percentage of this selection pnas.1519061113.
group was much higher than for the bull only or cows only. Gioi, P.V., Son, P.V., Hoang, T.T.M. 2018a. Reproductive performance of
female buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in controlled natural mating system
When the bull MEW was increased by 100 kg, the calf weight
in Thanh-Chuong district, Nghe-An province, Vietnam. Philipp. J. Vet.
increases was greater than for an increase of 100 kg in the cow,
Med. 55: 147–152.
showing that the MEW of the bull should be preferentially included Gioi, P.V., Tuan, T.A., Truong, L.G., Trang, L.T. 2018b. Growth performance
in a buffalo breeding program. However, when an increase in the of swamp buffaloes in Thach-That, Ha-Noi. Science and Technical Journal
MEW of both the bull and the cow by 100 kg, the efficiency of of Animal Husbandry 229: 28–34. [in Vietnamese]
calf weight increment was much higher than for a single selection, Hamid, M.A., Zaman, M.A., Rahman, A., Hossain, K.M. 2017. Buffalo genetic
and the contribution from bulls was usually more than from cows. resources and their conservation in Bangladesh. Res. J. Vet. Sci. 10: 1–13.
These results indicated that to achieve the expected efficiency in doi: 10.3923/rjvs.2017.1.13
International Committee for Animal Recording. 2020. International agreement
a buffalo breeding scheme, it is necessary to combine the simultaneous
of recording practices: Guidelines Approved by the General Assembly.
selection of both bulls and cows, though overall there should be more
http://pecuaria.pt/docs/Guidelines_2014.pdf, 11 August 2020.
emphasis on bull selection. Kandeepan, G., Biswas, S., Rajkumar, R.S. 2009. Buffalo as a potential food
In conclusion, selection of bulls and cows based on MEW strongly animal. Int. J. Livest. Prod. 1: 1– 5.
influenced calf weight from birth to age 12 mth. The bull selection Karim, M.R., Hossain, M.Z., Islam, M.R., Parvin, M.S., Matin, M.A. 2013.
group had a greater influence on calf weight and accounted for Reproductivity, productivity and management system of indigenous
a greater percentage than cow selection. A combination of selection of buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) cows in coastal area of Pirojpur and Borguna
both the bull and cow produced higher calf weight increases; however, district of Bangladesh. Progress. Agric. 24: 117–122. doi.org/10.3329/
pa.v24i1-2.19113
again, the bull’s contribution was greater than the cow’s contribution.
Marai, I.F.M., Habeeb, A.A.M. 2010. Buffaloes’ reproductive and productive
Bulls with MEW less than 500 kg should not be used for buffalo
traits as affected by heat stress. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 12: 193–217.
breeding. Sanjeet, K., Sushant, S. 2017. Testicular biometry and its correlation with
body weight and semen output in Murrah bull. Buffalo Bull. 36: 105–113.
470 Gioi P.V. et al. / Agr. Nat. Resour. 54 (2020) 463–470

Sanh, M.V., Chien, N.K., Cuong, V.C., Maillard J.C. 2008. Selection of big size Thac, N.D., Vuc, N.V., Thieu, C.V., Nhi D.L. 2006. Vietnamese Buffaloes.
bulls for breeding to improve body size of local swamp buffalo in Ha Giang Social Laboural Publisher. Hanoi, Vietnam. [in Vietnamese]
province. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2008: 78–84. Thevarnanoharan, K., Vandepitte, W., Mohiuddin G., Chantalakhana, C. 2001.
SAS Institute Inc. 2002. Using SAS software in your operating environment. Environmental factors affecting various growth traits of swamp: Buffalo
Proprietary Software Version 9.00. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. \ calves. Pak. J. Agr. Sci. 38: 5–10.
Selokar, N.L. 2018. Cloning of breeding buffalo bulls in India: Initiatives
& challenges. Indian J. Med. Res. 148: S120–S124. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.
IJMR_2103_17.