Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T01:42:30.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dam genotype in a beef breeding herd on calving parameters and chemical composition of colostrum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2017

D. E. Lowe ,
F. O. Lively  and
A. W. Gordon
D. E. Lowe*
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
F. O. Lively
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland
A. W. Gordon
Affiliation:
AFBI Newforge, Newforge Lane, Belfast, BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
*
†E-mail: Denise.Lowe@afbini.gov.uk
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this 3 year study was to compare two suckler cow genotypes, namely Limousin×Holstein (LH) (sourced from the dairy herd) and Stabiliser (ST) (a composite breed), in terms performance at calving. Both dam genotypes were bred to a ST sire and calved in spring/early summer. There was no significant effect of dam genotype on concentrations of casein, lactose, protein or urea nitrogen in the colostrum. Colostrum from LH cows had a significantly higher fat concentration compared with ST cows (P<0.05). Dam genotype had no effect on incidence of calving difficulty, cow temperament or mothering ability score. There was a significant difference in milk supply scores between the two breeds of cows when the 3 years of data were combined (P=0.002), with a higher percentage of LH cows having a plentiful supply of milk compared with ST cows and conversely a higher percentage of ST having limited milk compared with LH cows. However this was not a consistent effect over the 3 years. This study demonstrated that both dam breeds exhibit high maternal attributes at calving. However further work is required to investigate if LH cows have a more plentiful milk supply since this has potential to influence growth rate of progeny.

Keywords

suckler cowbreedinggenotypecalvingcolostrum
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: Improving the quality and sustainability of beef production , October 2017 , pp. s15 - s18
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Besser, TE and Gay, CC 1994. The importance of colostrum to the health of the neonatal calf. Veterinary Clinics of North America-Food Animal Practice 10, 107–111.Google Scholar
Burrow, HM 1997. Measurement of temperament and their relationships with performance traits of beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65, 477–495.Google Scholar
Cooke, RF, Bohnert, DW, Cappellozza, BI, Mueller, CJ and DelCurto, T 2012. Effects of temperament and acclimation to handling on reproductive performance of Bos taurus beef females. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3547–3555.Google Scholar
DEFRA 2013. Condition scoring of beef suckler cows and heifers. Retrieved on 28 June 2016 from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69370/pb6491-cattle-scoring-020130.pdf Google Scholar
Kasimanickam, R, Asay, M, Schroeder, S, Kasimanickam, V, Gay, JM, Kastelic, JP, Hall, JB and Whittier, WD 2014. Calm temperament improves reproductive performance of beef cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 49, 1063–1067.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kirkland, RM, Ingram, PA, Steen, RWJ, Comerford, J, Patterson, DC and Mayne, CS 2004. Beef from the suckler herd: 2. Evaluation of the performance of some of the commonest dam genotypes present in the Northern Ireland suckler herd. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, March 2004, York, England, p36.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M, Kreuzer, M and Roth-Maier, DA 1986. Milk urea and protein content to diagnose energy and protein malnutrition of dairy cows. Archives of Animal Nutrition 36, 192–197.Google ScholarPubMed
Laster, DB, Glimp, HA, Cundiff, LV and Gregory, KE 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef-cattle. Journal of Animal Science 36, 695–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Neindre, P, Trillat, G, Sapa, J, Menissier, F, Bonnet, JN and Chupin, JM 1995. Individual differences in docility in Limousin cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2249–2253.Google Scholar
Murphy, BM, Drennan, MJ, O’Mara, FP and McGee, M 2008. Performance and feed intake of five beef suckler cow genotypes and pre-weaning growth of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 47, 13–25.Google Scholar
Payne, RW, Harding, SA, Murray, DA, Soutar, DM, Baird, DB, Glaser, AI, Channing, IC, Welham, SJ, Gilmour, AR, Thompson, R and Webster, R 2015. The Guide to GenStat Release 12, Part 2: Statistics. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
Phocas, F, Boivin, X, Sapa, J, Trillat, G, Boissy, A and Le Neindre, P 2006. Genetic correlations between temperament and breeding traits in Limousin heifers. Animal Science 82, 805–811.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 2014. Using research to reduce the costs of producing beef and lamb. Produced on CD for AgriSearch, September 2014.Google Scholar
Zou, CX, Lively, FO, Wylie, ARG and Yan, T 2016. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements, methane emissions and nitrogen utilization efficiency of two suckler cow genotypes. Animal 10, 616–622.Google Scholar