Benny Gunawan
| Abstract views: 153 | PDF views: 211


An experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance of production traits of the synthetic population of Border Leicester x Merino crossbred. A comparison was made between the F2, F2.5, F3 generations ( synthetic population ) and Fl generation. Estimates the effects of maternal heterosis in the synthetic populations of Border Leicester x Merino crossbred were analyzed by the method of least squares for Birth Weight (BW), Weaning Weight (WW) and Yearling Weight (YW). Two kind of analyses were executed for each traits i.e. within Fl sire generation and within F2 sire generation. For each analysis, maternal heterosis was respectively calculated as twice the difference between the least squares means of F2 and F2.5 lambs and F2.5 and F3 lambs.Pool estimates of maternal heterosis effects were also calculated for each traits. Research results showed that there was no significant difference of BW between F2, F2.5 and F3 generation. Weaning Weight was significantly higher (P < 0,05) in the synthetic population as compared to the Fl generation. Yearling Weight (YW) was significantly higher in the F2 generation as compared to F2.5 and F3 generation at the level of 5% (P < 0,05 ) and the 10% level (P < 0,10 ) respectively. Within Fl sire generation,maternal heterosis effects were 12,65%, 3,4% and 1,67% for Birth Weight (BW), Weaning Weight (WW) and Yearling Weight(YW). From the analysis within F2 sire generation, maternal heterosis effects were 1% for BW, 4,49% for WW and 3,09% for YW.Pool estimates of maternal heterosis effects were 5,78%, 3,95% and 2,37% for BW, WW and YW respectively. These results indicated that the effect of maternal heterosis gradually declined from preweaning to postweaning periods. In general, the present estimates of maternal heterosis for body weights are in close agreement with previous publications.In order to gain maximum benefit from heterosis, these results suggest that in designing a crossbreeding program,especially in developing a new synthetic population, we should take into account not only individual heterosis effects but also all other different sources of heterosis such as maternal heterosis. Genetic methods presented in this paper can be used in the breeding program in Indonesia,especially in the development of the improved synthetic sheep population. However to the determine the superiority of synthetic population over the Fl generation, the overall comparison should be made on body weight, growth rate, survival rate and fertility traits.


maternal heterosis, pejantan generasi Fl, pejantan generasi F2, populasi sintetik.

Full Text:



Aboul Naga A and ESE Galal. 1973. A note on the effects of interbreeding among back crosses of sheep breeds. Animal Production 16, 87-90.

Bradley BP, AB Chapman, AL Pope and CO Rydberg. 1972. Two and three way crosses estimating combining ability of Suffolk, Targhee and Shropshire breeds of sheep. Journal Animal Science 34, 541-548.

Ch'ang TS and R Evans. 1982. Heterotic basis for breeding policy for lamb production. 2. Second World Congress of Genetic Applied to Livestock Production 8, 796-801. Madrid, Spain.

Dickerson GE. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Animal Breeding Abstract 37, 191-202.

Gunawan B, JW James and Me Cuirk BJ. 1985. Genetics parameters for production traits in Border Leicester - Merino synthetic populations. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics. University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 26-28 August, 1985.

Gunawan B. 1986. Genetic Studies of Quantitative Characters in Synthetic Populations. PhD Dissertation. Department of Genetics & Statistics, School of Fibre Science and Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Gunawan B. 2010. Growth rate and heritability estimates for body weights in synthetic population of sheep. Proceedings Simposium dan Kongres Nasional VI, PERIPI, Bogor, 17-19 November.

Harvey WR. 1960. Least Squares Analysis of Data with Unequal Subclass Numbers. Agricultural Research Service USA, Department of Agriculture.

Holtmann WB and C Bernard. 1969. Effect of general combining ability and maternal ability of Oxford, Suffolk and North Country Cheviot breeds of sheep. Journal Animal Science 28, 155-161.

Inounu I, Subandriyo, B Tiesnamurti, N Hidajati and La Ode Nafiu. 2005. Relative superiority analysis of Garut Dam and its crossbred. Jurnal llmu Ternak dan Veteriner 10, 17-26.

Me Guirk BJ, ME Bourke and JM Manwaring. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production.2. Effects on survival and growth of first cross lambs and on wool and body measurements of hogget ewes. Aust.J.Exp.Agric.Anim.Husb. 18, 753-763.

Nitter G. 1978. Breed utilization for meat production in sheep. Animal Breeding Abstract 46, 131-143.

Rastogi R, WJ Boylan, WE Rempel and HF Windels. 1982. Crossbreeding in sheep with evaluation of combining ability, heterosis and recombination effects for lamb growth. Journal Animal Science 54, 524-532.

Subandriyo, B Setiadi, M Rangkuti, K Diwyanto, E Handiwirawan, E Romjali, M Doloksaribu, S Elieser dan L Batubara. 1996. Pemuliaan Bangsa Domba Sintesis Hasil Persilangan antara Domba Lokal Sumatera dengan Domba Rambut. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Petemakan, Bogor.

Subandriyo, B Setiadi, M Rangkuti, K Diwyanto, M Doloksaribu, LP Batubara, E Romjali, S Elieser dan E Handiwirawan. 1998. Performa domba komposit hasil persilangan antara domba lokal sumatera dengan domba rambut. Jurnal llmu Ternak dan Veteriner 3, 78-88.

Subandriyo, B Setiadi, E Handiwirawan dan A Suparyanto. 2000. Performa domba komposit hasil persilangan antara domba lokal sumatera dengan domba rambut pada kondisi dikandangkan. Jurnal llmu Ternak dan Veteriner 5, 73-83.

Whitehurst VE, RM Crown, RW Phillips and DA Spencer. 1947. Productivity of Columbia sheep in Florida and their use for crossing with native sheep. Tech. Bull. Agric. Exp. Sta., Florida, No. 429

Wiener G and S Hayter. 1975. Maternal performance in sheep as effected by breed, crossbreeding and other factors. Animal Production 20, 19-30.


  • There are currently no refbacks.