Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T00:26:12.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian dairy cow and pasture-based system on grass intake and milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. Horan ,
P. Faverdin ,
L. Delaby ,
M. Rath  and
P. Dillon
B. Horan
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Dairy Production Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. Faverdin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR Production du Lait, 35590 St Gilles, France
L. Delaby
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR Production du Lait, 35590 St Gilles, France
M. Rath
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. Dillon*
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Dairy Production Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†Corresponding author: E-mail: pdillon@moorepark.teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow, pasture-based feeding system (FS) and their interaction on milk production, dry matter (DM) intake and energy balance over 3 years consecutively. The three strains were: high milk production North American (HP), high fertility and survival (durability) North American (HD) and New Zealand (NZ). The FS were: a high grass allowance (HG FS), a high concentrate (HC FS) and a high stocking rate (HS FS). A separate farmlet existed for each FS and a total of 99, 117 and 117 animals were used in year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively, divided equally between strains and FS. Individual animal intakes were estimated three times each year at pasture; in May (P1), in July (P2) and October (P3), corresponding on average to day 102, 177 and 240 of lactation, respectively. The HP cows achieved the highest milk yield, the NZ the lowest, while the HD was intermediate; the HP achieved the highest solid corrected milk yield with no difference between the NZ and HD strains. The grass DM intake of the HP strain was highest ( P<0·001) in all feeding systems. There was a significant strain×FS interaction for yield of milk, fat and protein, grass DM and total DM intake. The milk production response to the HC FS in P1 and P2 was significantly greater for both the HP and HD strains than for the NZ strain, while in P3 the response was highest for the HP, lowest for the NZ and intermediate for the HD. The reduction in pasture DM intake per kg of concentrate was greatest for the NZ strain, lowest for the HP and intermediate for the HD strain. The NZ strain also had the highest grass DM intake per kg live weight. The existence of strain×FS interactions for production and DM intake indicate that greater knowledge of both genotype and feeding environment is required to predict animal performance.

Keywords

dairy cowsenergy balancefood intakeHolstein-Friesianmilk production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 435 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Bargo, F., Muller, L. D., Delahoy, J. and Cassidy, T. W. (2002) Milk response to concentrate supplementation of high producing dairy cows grazing at two pasture allowances. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 1777–1792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broster, W. H. and Broster, V. J. (1984) Reviews of the progress of dairy science: long term effects of plane of nutrition on the performance of the dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Research 51: 149–196.Google Scholar
Buckley, F., Dillon, P., Rath, M. and Veerkamp, R. F. (2000) The relationship between genetic merit for yield and liveweight, condition score and energy balance of spring calving Holstein-Friesian dairy cows on grass based systems of milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1878–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, W. R. and Smith, R. D. (1989) Interrelationships between energy balance and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 767–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Congleton, W.R., Pearce, B.R. and Beal, B. F. (1997) A C++ implementation of an individual landscape model. Ecological Modelling 103: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulon, J.B. and Rémond, B. (1991) Variations in milk output and milk protein content in response to the level of energy supply to the dairy cow: a review. Livestock Production Science 29: 31–47.Google Scholar
Dillon, P. 1993. The use of n-alkanes as markers to determine intake, botanical composition of available or consumed herbage in studies of digesta kinetics with dairy cows. Ph.D. thesis, National University Ireland, Dublin.Google Scholar
Dillon, P., Crosse, S., Stakelum, G. and Flynn, F. (1995) The effect of calving date, and stocking rate on the performance of spring-calving dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 50: 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P. and Stakelum, G. (1989) Herbage and dosed alkanes as a grass measurement technique for dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 104(abstr.).Google Scholar
Dove, H. and Mayes, R.W. (1991) The use of plant wax alkanes as marker substances in studies of the nutrition of herbivores: a review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42: 913–952.Google Scholar
Evans, R. D., Dillon, P., Buckley, F., Wallace, M., Ducrocq, V. and Garrick, D. J. (2004) Trends in milk production, fertility and survival of Irish dairy cows as a result of the introgression of Holstein-Friesian genes. Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, Tullamore, Ireland, pp. 52(abstr.).Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P., Dulphy, J.P., Coulon, J.B., Vérité, R., Garel, J. P., Rouel, J. and Marquis, B. (1991) Substitution of roughage by concentrates by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 27: 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1980) Feed input-milk output relationships in the spring calving dairy cow. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed.Haresign, W.) pp. 15–31Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Harris, B.L. and Kolver, E. S. (2001) Review of Holsteinization of intensive pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 84: E56–E61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, C.W., Lawrence, T.L. J., Gordon, F.J. and Carson, A. (1995) Genotype×environment interactions in dairy cattle: a New Zealand perspective. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow. British Society Animal Science occasional publication no. 19. pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
Horan, B., Dillon, P., Faverdin, P., Delaby, L., Buckley, F. and Rath, M. (2005) the interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B., Mee, J.F., Rath, M., O'Connor, P. and Dillon, P. (2004) The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feed system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science 79: 453–468.Google Scholar
Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (1999) Irish cattle breeding statistics 1999. Irish Cattle Breeding Society Ltd, Co., Cork,Ireland.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R. (1989) Ruminant nutrition, recommended allowances and feed tables. John Libbey Eurotext Montrougue, France.Google Scholar
Kellaway, R. and Porta, S. (1993) Feeding concentrates supplements for dairy cows Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.Dillon, P.Faverdin, P.Delaby, L., Stakelum, G. and Rath, M. (2003) Effect of genetic merit and concentrate supplementation on grass intake and milk production with Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 610–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J., Dillon, P., Faverdin, P., Delaby, L., Buckley, F. and Rath, M. (2002) The influence of cow genetic merit on response to concentrate supplementation in a grass based system. Animal Science 75: 433–446.Google Scholar
Lamb, R. C., Stoddard, G. E., Michelsen, C.H., Anderson, M. J. and Waldo, D. R. (1973) Response to concentrates containing two percents of protein fed at four rates for complete lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 57: 811–815.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. (1985) Milk production from grazed temperate grassland. Journal of Dairy Research 52: 313–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LowmanB.G., B.G.,, Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, revised edition. Bulletin no. 6. East of Scotland College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Mayes, R.W., Lamb, C.S. and Colgrove, P. M. (1986) The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.Google Scholar
Ostergaard, V. 1979. Strategies for concentrate feeding to attain optimum feeding level in high yielding dairy cows. 482 Beretning fra statens husdyrbrugs forsog Kobenhavn , p. 138.Google Scholar
Penno, J.W., Macdonald, K. A. and Bryant, A. M. (1996) The economics of the No. 2 Dairy systems. Proceedings of the Ruakara Farmers Conference 48: 11–19.Google Scholar
Peyraud, J.L., Comeron, E. A., Wade, M. H. and Lemaire, G. (1996) The effect of daily herbage allowance, herbage mass and animal factors upon herbage intake by grazing dairy cows. Annales de Zootechnie 45: 201–217.Google Scholar
Peyraud, J.L. and Delaby, L. (2001) Ideal concentrate feeds for grazing dairy cows responses to supplementation in interaction with grazing management and grass quality. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed.Garnsworthy, P. C. and Wiseman, J.), pp.203–220. Nottingham University Press UK.Google Scholar
Peyraud, J.L., Delagarde, R. and Delaby, L. 2001. Relationship between milk production, grass dry matter intake and grass digestion. Proceedings of Dairy Conference of the Irish Grassland Association, Cork 11 and 12 September, pp.1–19.Google Scholar
Rauw, W.M.. Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N. and Grommers, F. J. (1998) Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., Rath, M. and Wallace, M. (2004) Description and validation of the Moorepark Dairy Systems Model. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 1945–1958.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W. G. (1980) Statistical methods, seventh edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Stakelum, G. and Connolly, J. (1987) Effect of body size and milk yield on intake of fresh herbage by lactating dairy cows indoors. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 9–22.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. (2002) User's guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tyrell, H.F. and Reid, J. T. (1965) Prediction of the energy value of cow's milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Arendonk, J.A.M., Nieuwhof, G. J., Vos, H. and Korver, S. (1991) Genetic aspects of feed intake and efficiency in lactating dairy heifers. Livestock Production Science 29: 263–275.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R.F., Beerda, B. and Van der Lende, T. (2003) Effects of genetic selection for milk yield on energy balance, level of hormones, and metabolites in lactating cattle, and possible links to reduced fertility. Livestock Production Science 83: 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veerkamp, R.F. and Emmans, G. C. (1995) Sources of genetic variation in energetic efficiency of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 44: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar