224 Ferris

 Introduction
The high milk production potential and high efficiency for milk production of
the Holstein cow has led to the dominance of the Holstein breed in many
parts of the world. However, selection programs that resulted in these high
levels of milk production largely ignored functional traits. The subsequent
decline in fertility, health and longevity within the Holstein population has now
been thoroughly documented. As a result of this, part of the additional
benefits gained with the Holstein breed, through increased milk production
efficiency, have been lost through poorer cow health and longevity.

There are a number of approaches by which these problems might be

tackled, including the adoption of improved nutritional and management
strategies, and genetic approaches. With regard to the latter, three broad
strategies are often proposed, namely: 1) improved within-breed selection
programs, 2) breed substitution (the introduction of an alternative breed to
replace the Holstein breed) and 3) crossbreeding.

 Crossbreeding
Crossbreeding can be defined as mating of parents of two or more different
breeds, strains or species together. While the practice of crossbreeding is
widespread within many other livestock enterprises, the adoption of
crossbreeding within dairying tends to be more limited. One notable
exception to this is the New Zealand dairy sector where a significant
proportion of the national dairy herd is crossbred. Nevertheless, interest in
crossbreeding has increased in recent years in many countries.

There are a number of reasons why dairy farmers are increasingly

considering the adoption of crossbreeding within their herds. These include:

Breed Complementarity
This refers to the introduction of desirable genes from a second breed that
may be absent or occur at a low frequency in the recipient breed. Breed
complementarity can be used to introduce both production traits and
functional traits such as fertility and health into a herd.

Beneficial Effects of Hybrid Vigour

Hybrid vigour describes the additional performance benefits that can be
obtained with a crossbred animal over and above the mean of the two parent
breeds. For example, if Breed A has a lactation yield potential of 6000 litres,
and breed B has a lactation yield potential of 8000 litres, the offspring of the
two breeds might be expected to have a lactation yield potential of
Crossbreeding in Dairy Cattle: Pros and Cons 225

approximately 7000 litres (Figure 1). However, in the example given the
actual production of the crossbred cow is 7350 litres, with the extra 350 litres
of milk over and above that expected being due to hybrid vigour. The extent
of hybrid vigour varies between traits. For example, for traits such as milk
yield and milk composition, hybrid vigour is normally estimated to be between
3–6%, while for traits such as fertility, health and longevity, hybrid vigour may
be up to 20%, depending on the degree of genetic differences between the
parent breeds.

9000

8000
Lactation milk yield (kg)

Hybrid vigour:
350 kg more milk
7000 than expected

6000

5000

4000
Breed A Crossbred Breed B

Figure 1: Example of the possible effect of hybrid vigour on milk

production when two breeds are crossed

To Reduce Levels of Inbreeding

Inbreeding levels have increased in many dairy cow populations during the
last few decades. The negative consequences of inbreeding are inbreeding
depression, an increase in undesirable recessive disorders, and a loss in
genetic variation. For example, a number of studies have shown an
unfavourable association between performance for production traits and non-
production traits, with increasing inbreeding depression. Crossing with a
second breed is one option by which levels of inbreeding can be rapidly
reduced.
Crossbreeding in Dairy Cattle: Pros and Cons 239

 Issues To Be Considered Before Adopting

Crossbreeding
The findings of the AFBI studies, together with an increasing body of
international evidence, has clearly demonstrated the potential advantages of
crossbred cows in terms of improved health, fertility and longevity. So is the
‘crossbreeding route’ one that all farmers should be actively considering? On
many farms where appropriate sire selection programs have been in place in
the past, crossbreeding may offer a lesser benefit in terms of an overall
improvement in economic performance, while on other farms crossbreeding is
likely to have a very real role. The following are some of the key issues that
need to be considered before embarking on a crossbreeding program:

a) Crossbreeding will not solve problems associated with poor management

or poor nutrition. It has been suggested that a ‘bad’ ‘pure-bred’ farmer will
be an even poorer ‘crossbred’ farmer. Farmers must clearly identify why
they are considering crossbreeding (i.e. what is the issue they are trying to
address), and then identify if crossbreeding is likely to provide part of the
solution, or if management changes will be equally effective.

b) With careful sire selection crossbreeding can represent genetic

improvement through a combination of both additive and non-additive
genetic improvement. Additive genetic improvement takes place when the
top AI sires (for the most economically important traits) are used within that
breed. The non-additive component is via heterosis or hybrid vigour.
Selection indexes that have a major emphasis on functional traits now
exist for the Holstein breed within many countries. Through careful sire
selection, bulls that can help to overcome current herd weaknesses can be
chosen. Nevertheless, on many herds it will take quite a few generations
to reverse some longstanding problems and for many crossbreeding does
offer a more immediate solution.

c) Performance of the first crosses will please even the most critical. As
outlined, first crosses tend to tick all the boxes: display full hybrid vigour,
productive and fertile. They also tend to be uniform in appearance (colour,
size, etc.). For traits displaying a lot of hybrid vigour, e.g., fertility and
longevity, subsequent generation performance may decline, depending to
varying extents on the additive genetic contribution of the follow on sires
selected. Hybrid vigour should be recognized as a ‘bonus’ rather than long
term genetic gain. Adopting crossbreeding solely to gain the benefits of
hybrid vigour is unlikely to be justified, although undoubtedly levels of
hybrid vigour for some functional traits can be high. It is critical to
remember that hybrid vigour is not fully passed on to the next generation.
The extent to which hybrid vigour is expressed in later generations is
dependent on the strategy taken after the first cross. A common question
240 Ferris

among dairy farmers considering crossbreeding is “where to after the first

cross?” Several schemes are available for creating replacement animals
via crossbreeding. The three most common are as follows:

Two-way crossbreeding. This entails mating the F 1 cow to a high

genetic merit sire of one of the parent breeds used initially. In the
short term hybrid vigour will be reduced but over time settles down at
66.6%.
Three way crossing. Uses high genetic merit sires of a third breed.
When the F1 cow is mated to a sire of a third breed hybrid vigour is
maintained at 100%. However, with the reintroduction of sires from
the same three breeds again in subsequent generations, for example
Holstein-Friesian, hybrid vigour averages out at 85.7%.
Synthetic crossing. This involves the use of high genetic merit
crossbred bulls. In the long term a new (synthetic) breed is produced.
Hybrid vigour in this strategy is reduced to 50% initially and is
reduced gradually with time.

d) While crossbreeding may be advocated as a means of overcoming

inbreeding depression, levels of inbreeding within many Holstein
populations are still relatively low. It has been suggested that inbreeding
really only becomes problematic when levels are >6.25%. With careful
sire selection, high levels of inbreeding can be avoided.

e) It is suggested that crossbreeding can complicate management, especially

in relation to housing and milking facilities. Depending on the breeds
used, crossbreeding can result in smaller cows (e.g. Jersey), and cows
with a more diverse range of sizes. While the former may be
advantageous within a grazing system, smaller and mixed sized cows can
pose problems in the milking parlour and in cubicle houses. Such
problems, however, are relatively easily overcome.

f) The impact of crossbreeding on the value of cull cows, male calves and
surplus breeding stock needs to be considered. The impact may vary
depending on the breed chosen. For example, the use of the Montbeliarde
breed within a crossbreeding program may well increase the value of cull
cows and male calves, while the reverse is likely to be true when the
Jersey is used. In addition, the impact of crossbreeding on the long term
value of the herd needs to be considered. This issue has been factored in
to the economic analyses presented. In reality this aspect of the enterprise
should represent a minor contribution to overall profit and so is often over
emphasized by those opposed to crossbreeding.
Crossbreeding in Dairy Cattle: Pros and Cons 241

g) The choice of the second (and possibly third) breed for use within a
crossbreeding program is critical. A number of issues need to be
considered. Firstly, the breed should be suitable for the milk production
system in which its offspring will function (i.e. low input grazing vs high
input confinement). In most cases, a breed should be chosen to minimize
any loss in milk production, while at the same time maximizing the gain to
be made in other traits. Evidence from AFBI studies would suggest that
Jersey crossbreds are not particularly suited to high input systems, while
evidence from the U.S. would suggest that Scandinavian crosses are. In
addition, any breed being considered for use within a crossbreeding
program should have an associated breed improvement progeny testing
program, with a significant focus on traits of greatest economic
importance. To facilitate this, breeds being considered should have a
sufficiently large population size to allow ongoing genetic improvements to
be made. When choosing a breed the first step is to identify the key goals
of the crossbreeding program, and to identify a breed that will allow these
goals to be achieved.

h) The choice of sire within a breed is perhaps even more critical than the
choice of breed itself. Additive genetic improvement, i.e., the superiority of
the sire team within breed cannot be ignored. The perception is still
widespread that a bull of a different breed purchased from a ‘neighbour
down the road’ will be suitable for crossbreeding, just because it is of a
‘different breed’. This will only do a great disservice to the concept of
crossbreeding. Sires used within crossbreeding programs should be top
sires for the desirable traits from within the breed selected.

i) Using a breed that is genetically ‘distanced’ from the parent breed will also
impact on the level of heterosis to be gained. For example, while some
have advocated the use of Red Holsteins as a ‘breed’ for ‘crossbreeding’,
the benefits of these in terms of heterosis will be small, although they may
provide scope for ‘out crossing’ within many Holstein populations.

j) Jersey-Holstein crossbreds tended to be good cows in all systems;

however, better sorts of crossbreds probably exist for confinement dairying
in the Northern Hemisphere, in particular where payment is milk volume
based rather than milk solids based. Jersey-Holstein crossbreds are
probably most suited to lower input systems that incorporate loose housing
or pastures for grazing. Jersey-Holstein crossbreds were much more likely
to survive to 3rd and 4th lactation than their pure Holstein herd mates – the
not-so-good news is, in later lactations, the Jersey-Holstein crossbreds
tended to become extremely deep in the udder, become high in SCC, and
leave the herds quickly at that stage of life. Crossbreeding systems in
confinement dairies will most likely benefit from using three (suitable)
breeds. Preliminary results in California and the University of Minnesota
242 Ferris

indicate no loss in production by adding a third breed into a crossbreeding

system.

 Conclusions
Crossbreeding is not for everyone, and crossbreeding will not overcome
problems of poor management. Nevertheless, a well-planned and well-
managed crossbreeding program can result in robust cows with fewer calving
difficulties, fewer health problems, higher levels of fertility, and ultimately
improved longevity. While crossbreeding may have a detrimental impact on
some economic aspects such as the value of male calves and cull cows, the
positive financial impact associated with improvements in functional traits has
the potential to improve overall economic performance of the dairy business.

 References
Beecher, M., F. Buckley, S.M. Waters, T.M. Boland, D. Enriquez-Hidalgo,
M.H. Deighton, M. O’Donovan and E. Lewis. 2014. Gastrointestinal tract
size, total tract digestibility and rumen microflora in different dairy cow
genotypes. J. Dairy Sci. in press.
Buckley, F., B. Horan, N. Lopez-Villalobos and P. Dillon. 2007. Milk
production efficiency of varying dairy cow genotypes under grazing
conditions. In proceedings of Australian Dairy Science Symposium. 2007,
University of Melbourne, September 18-20, p74-83.
Ferris, C.P. 2012. An examination of the potential of crossbreeding to
improve the profitability of dairying in Northern Ireland. Final Report for
AgriSearch, November 2012. www.AgriSearch.org.
Heins, B.J., and L.B. Hansen. 2012. Short communication: Fertility, somatic
cell score, and production of Normande × Holstein, Montbéliarde ×
Holstein, and Scandinavian Red × Holstein crossbreds versus pure
Holsteins during their first 5 lactations. J. Dairy Sci. 95:918-924.
Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen, and A. De Vries. 2012a. Survival, lifetime
production, and profitability of crossbreds of Holstein with Normande,
Montbéliarde, and Scandinavian Red compared to pure Holstein cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 95:1011-1021.
Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen, A.R. Hazel, A.J. Seykora, D.G. Johnson and J.G.
Linn. 2012b. Short communication: Jersey × Holstein crossbreds
compared with pure Holsteins for body weight, body condition score,
fertility, and survival during the first three lactations. J. Dairy Sci.
95:4130-4135.
Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen, A.J. Seykora, A.R. Hazel, D.G. Johnson and J.G.
Linn. 2011. Short communication: Jersey × Holstein crossbreds compared
with pure Holsteins for production, mastitis, and body measurements
during the first 3 lactations. J. Dairy Sci. 94:501-506.