Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:50:15.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of production efficiencies among primiparous suckler cows of diverse genetic index at pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2017

S. McCabe ,
N. McHugh  and
R. Prendiville
S. McCabe
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
N. McHugh
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
R. Prendiville*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
†E-mail: robert.prendiville@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to determine estimates of production efficiency among primiparous suckler cows of diverse genetic merit (GM) for the national Irish maternal index. Data from 82 heifers of diverse GM across two different replacement strategies (suckler (S) or dairy (D) sourced) were available. Milk yield, grass dry matter intake, cow BW and body condition score (BCS) were recorded. The maternal index had no significant effect on any parameters investigated, whereas S cows were 86 kg heavier in BW, had a 0.33 greater BCS and 0.6 UFL greater NEM requirement compared with D beef crossbred (F1) cows. The F1 produced 2.2 kg/day more milk and had greater lactation energy requirements (0.8 UFL) than S. The F1 produced 0.48 kg milk per 100 kg BW and 0.15 kg more milk per unit intake. An interaction between GM and cow origin (CO) showed that F1 low merit cows consumed an additional 1 kg DM than F1 high, and that S high merit cows produced 1.5 kg less milk than their S low counterparts resulting in a 0.5 UFL greater energy requirement for milk production for S low. The F1 high merit cows produced 0.12 kg more milk per unit intake than F1 low cows, whereas S low cows produced 0.12 kg less milk per unit intake than S high. The F1 low cows consumed 0.17 kg more DM per unit BW than F1 high. Thus, genetic selection for maternal traits has not resulted in differences in production efficiency traits, however CO differences were observed.

Keywords

beefgeneticsintakemilk yield
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: Improving the quality and sustainability of beef production , October 2017 , pp. s55 - s59
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

Amer, PR, Simm, G, Keane, MG, Diskin, MG and Wickham, BW 2001. Breeding objectives for beef cattle in Ireland. Livestock Production Science 67, 223–239.Google Scholar
Berry, D, O’Donovan, M and Dillon, P 2009. Potential to genetically alter intake and energy balance in grass fed dairy cows. In Breeding for robustness in Cattle (ed. Marija Klopcic, Reinhard Reents, Jan Philipson, Abele Kuipers), pp. 219–224. EAAP Publication, Wageningen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, D, Ring, S, Twomey, A, Hurley, A, O’Sullivan, M and McParland, S 2016. Update of Economic Breeding Index. Teagasc, Moorepark.Google Scholar
Coleman, J, Berry, DP, Pierce, KM, Brennan, A and Horan, B 2010. Dry matter intake and feed efficiency profiles of 3 genotypes of Holstein-Friesian within pasture-based systems of milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4318–4331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. PhD thesis, National University of Ireland, Dublin.Google Scholar
Dodenhoff, J, Van Vleck, LD and Gregory, K 1999. Estimation of direct, maternal, and grandmaternal genetic effects for weaning weight in several breeds of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 77, 840–845.Google Scholar
Enns, RM and Nicoll, GB 2008. Genetic change results from selection on an economic breeding objective in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3348–3357.Google Scholar
Estermann, B, Sutter, F, Schlegel, P, Erdin, D, Wettstein, H and Kreuzer, M 2002. Effect of calf age and dam breed on intake, energy expenditure, and excretion of nitrogen, phosphorus, and methane of beef cows with calves. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1124–1134.Google Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O’kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D and Wallace, M 2010. Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms. Journal of Farm Management 14, 95–116.Google Scholar
Garrick, D and Golden, B 2009. Producing and using genetic evaluations in the United States beef industry of today. Journal of Animal Science 87, E11–E18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, T and Ferrell, C 2002. Beef cow efficiency–revisited. Beef Improvement Federation annual meeting, Omaha, pp. 32–43.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B and McGee, M 2013. Intake of conserved and grazed grass and performance traits in beef suckler cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Livestock Science 152, 154–166.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA and Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, p. 31.Google Scholar
Marshall, S, Campbell, C and Buchanan-Smith, J 1998. Herbage biomass and intake of beef cows with calves grazing a grass-legume pasture in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78, 211–218.Google Scholar
McGee, M 2009. What feed efficiency in the suckler cow has to offer beef farmers. Irish Grassland Association Journal 43, 125–131.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2005a. Effect of suckler cow genotype on milk yield and pre-weaning calf performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 185–194.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2005b. Effect of suckler cow genotype on energy requirements and performance in winter and subsequently at pasture. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 157–171.Google Scholar
McHugh, N, Cromie, A, Evans, R and Berry, D 2014. Validation of national genetic evaluations for maternal beef cattle traits using Irish field data. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1423–1432.Google Scholar
Minick, JA, Buchanan, DS and Rupert, SD 2001. Milk production of crossbred daughters of high- and low-milk EPD Angus and Hereford bulls. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1386–1393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mrode, RA and Thompson, R 2005. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CABI Publication, Oxfordshire.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, B, 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
O’Mara, F 2000. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. Version 1.2. University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Wright, IA, Jones, JR, Maxwell, TJ, Russel, AJF and Hunter, EA 1994. The effect of genotype×environment interactions on biological efficiency in beef cows. Animal production 58, 197–207.Google Scholar