Comparative Analysis of Head Shape in Sahiwal and Holstein Friesian crossbred Cattle in India by using Geometric Morphometrics
2
Authors
-
satish kumar pathak
Keywords:
Cattle, Craniofacial morphology, Geometric morphometrics, Holstein Friesian crossbred, Procrustes ANOVA, SahiwalAbstract
Holstein Friesian cattle (Bos taurus), despite their high dairy productivity, show limited adaptation to tropical environments compared with indigenous zebu cattle (Bos indicus). In India, extensive crossbreeding has produced Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle with improved adaptability; however, the morphological consequences of this taurine–zebu admixture remain insufficiently documented. This study assessed cranial shape variation between Sahiwal (Bos indicus) and Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle using geometric morphometric methods. Head morphology of 51 adult female cattle (32 Sahiwal and 19 Holstein Friesian crossbreds) was analyzed using 44 two-dimensional landmarks from dorsal and lateral photographs. Following Generalized Procrustes Superimposition, shape variation and inter-breed differentiation were examined using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA), Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), and Procrustes Analysis of Variance (Procrustes ANOVA). PCA revealed structured cranial shape variation, with the first three components explaining more than 60% of total variance in both views. Procrustes ANOVA indicated no significant differences in centroid size between breeds. In contrast, cranial shape differed significantly between Sahiwal and Holstein Friesian crossbred cattle in both dorsal and lateral views (P < 0.0001), with stronger differentiation evident in the lateral profile. CVA and DFA demonstrated clear inter-breed separation, supported by high Mahalanobis distances and significant permutation tests. These findings indicate that cranial shape retains clear signatures of taurine–zebu divergence despite crossbreeding, with lateral head morphology providing the strongest discriminatory signal. The findings show that differences in head shape reflect adaptation, domestication, and function, highlighting phenotypic diversity in indigenous and crossbred cattle under tropical conditions.
Downloads
References
Adams D C, Rohlf F J and Slice D E. 2013. A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24(1). https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283.
Aggarwal A and Upadhyay R. 2013. Heat Stress and Animal Productivity [Internet]. Springer India,. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0879-2.
Alhaddad H, Powell B B, Del Pinto L, Sutter N, Brooks S A and Alhajeri B H. 2024. Geometric morphometrics of face profile across horse breeds and within Arabian horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 132: 104980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104980.
Barwa D K, Jain A, Dubey A and Yadav A. 2021. Crossbreeding in cattle: A review. Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Biosciences 9(1): 450–456. https://doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8534.
Boettcher P J, Hoffmann I, Baumung R, Drucker A G, McManus C, Berg P, Stella A, Nilsen L B, Moran D, Naves M and Thompson M C. 2015. Genetic resources and genomics for adaptation of livestock to climate change. Frontiers in Genetics 5: 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00461.
Casanova P M. 2015. Geometric morphometrics to the study of skull sexual dimorphism in a local domestic goat breed. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production 3(3). https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2608.1000141.
Demircioglu I, Demiraslan Y, Gurbuz I and Dayan M O. 2020. İvesi koyunu ve koçunda kafatası ve mandibulanın geometrik morfometrik analizi. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2020.24714.
Drake A G, Coquerelle M, Kosintsev P A, Bachura O P, Sablin M, Gusev A V, Fleming L S and Losey R J. 2017. Three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of fossil canid mandibles and skulls. Scientific Reports 7(1): 9508. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10232-1.
Felius M, Beerling M L, Buchanan D, Theunissen B, Koolmees P and Lenstra J. 2014. On the history of cattle genetic resources. Diversity 6(4): 705–750. https://doi.org/10.3390/d6040705.
Gambo B G, Yahaya A, Abdulhamid M B and Olopade J O. 2019. Sexual dimorphism in osteometric indices of Kuri cattle skulls. Nigerian Journal of Physiological Sciences.
Gündemir O, Manuta N, Güzel B C, Bakıcı C, Duro S, Ünal B, Çakar B and Szara T. 2025. Skull morphology in native and non-native cattle breeds in Türkiye. Journal of Anatomy 247(1): 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.14234.
Güzel B C, Çakar B, Manuta N, Ünal B and Duro S. 2025. Exploring skull morphology in East Anatolian Red cattle and South Anatolian Red cattle breeds through 3D modelling. Veterinary Medicine and Science 11(5): e70521. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.70521.
Hansen P J. 2004. Physiological and cellular adaptations of zebu cattle to thermal stress. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83: 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2004.04.011.
Kiliçli I B, Batur B, Yunus H A and Bakici C. 2025. Geometric morphometric analysis of body shape and sexual dimorphism in Colossoma macropomum. Annals of Anatomy – Anatomischer Anzeiger 260: 152659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2025.152659.
Klingenberg C P. 2011. MORPHO J: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11(2): 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x.
Liuti T and Dixon P M. 2020. The use of the geometric morphometric method to illustrate shape difference in the skulls of different-aged horses. Veterinary Research Communications 44(3–4): 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-020-09779-8.
Meng Y, Wang G, Xiong D, Liu H, Liu X, Wang L and Zhang J. 2018. Geometric morphometric analysis of the morphological variation among three lenoks of genus Brachymystax in China. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 50(3). https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.3.885.895.
Miglior F, Fleming A, Malchiodi F, Brito L F, Martin P and Baes C F. 2017. A 100-year review: Identification and genetic selection of economically important traits in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 100(12): 10251–10271. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12968.
Özkan E, Siddiq A B, Kahvecioğlu K O, Öztürk M and Onar V. 2019. Morphometric analysis of the skulls of domestic cattle (Bos taurus L.) and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.) in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 43(4): 532–539. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1903-66.
Rege J E O and Tawah C L. 1999. The state of African cattle genetic resources II. Geographical distribution, characteristics and uses of present-day breeds and strains. Animal Genetic Resources Information 26: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900001152.
Robinson C V and Visona-Kelly B C. 2025. A geometric morphometric approach for detecting different reproductive stages of a free-ranging killer whale (Orcinus orca) population. Scientific Reports 15(1): 3239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86793-3.
Rohlf F J. 2015. The tps series of software. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 26(1). https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-26.1-11264.
Sarang S K, Sreekumar D and Sejian V. 2024. Indigenous cattle biodiversity in India: Adaptation and conservation. Reproduction and Breeding 4(4): 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbre.2024.09.001.
Sarma K. 2006. Morphological and craniometrical studies on the skull of Kagani goat (Capra hircus) of Jammu region. International Journal of Morphology 24(3). https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022006000400025.
Shamsuddin M. 2011. Dairy production in diverse regions: Southern Asia. In: Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00128-X.
Siddiqui S A, Schulte H, Golik A B, Pandiselvam R, Venkidasamy B, Homayouni-Rad A and Maqsood S. 2024. Traditional and commercial dairy products from yak, camel, zebu-brahma, mithun, reindeer and sow – A review on current research status. International Dairy Journal 152: 105879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2023.105879.
Turgut N. 2025. Morphometric analysis of the skull in the Holstein cow: A computed tomography study. Journal of Veterinary Anatomy 18(1): 61–74.
Vaccaro L. 2002. Dairy production in diverse regions: Latin America. In: Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. Elsevier, pp. 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00127-8.
Xu X, Yan W, Guo J, Dai D, Li L and Zhang H. 2025. The development of horns in Bovidae and the genetic mechanisms underpinning this process. Biology 14(8): 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14081027.
Zelditch M L, Swiderski D L, Sheets H D and Fink W L. 2012. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. 2nd ed. Elsevier/AP, Amsterdam.
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.
How to Cite
