Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:08:15.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of growth curves of three strains of female dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. P. Berry ,
B. Horan  and
P. Dillon
D. P. Berry*
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
B. Horan
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. Dillon
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: dberry@moorepark. teagasc. ie
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to compare growth curves for live weight (LW) and body size of three strains of female dairy cattle reared under common environments in Ireland. One strain (HP) was selected from a predominantly North-American/European Holstein-Friesian genetic pool selected for high milk production. The second strain (HD) represented a predominantly North-American/European Holstein-Friesian genetic pool selected for high milk production but with greater selection emphasis on functional non-production traits. The third strain (NZ) consisted of New Zealand Holstein-Friesian females of high genetic merit for profitability in New Zealand. The data consisted of 99 animals (33 animals in each strain) with records on LW, length, girth and height from birth to a minimum of 594 days of age. The von Bertalanffy growth function was fitted to each animal's records separately and least-squares analyses were used to investigate the effect of strain on birth LW/body size, parameters of the growth function and average daily gains. Average mature live weight of the HD animals (591 kg) was significantly larger than that of the HP (566 kg) or NZ (543 kg) strain; the HD strain matured more slowly. The HD (134 cm) and HP (135 cm) strains were significantly taller than the NZ (128 cm) strain. Although the data set was relatively small there are indications that dairy females of North-American genetic origin were heavier at birth, grew faster, and were heavier and taller at maturity than dairy females of New Zealand origin.

Keywords

dairy cattlegrowth curvestrain differences
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 151 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Ahlborn-Breier, G. and Wickham, B. W. 1990. A selection index for production, management and conformation traits. Proceedings of the fourth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Edinburgh, vol. 14, pp. 86–89Google Scholar
Bakker, H. and Koops, W. J. 1978. An approach to the comparison of growth curves of Dutch Friesian, British Friesian and Holstein Friesian cows. Current topics in veterinary medicine. Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle 2: 705–715.Google Scholar
Berry, D. P., Buckley, F., Dillon, P., Evans, R. D. and Veerkamp, R. F. 2005. Genetic relationships among linear type traits, milk yield, body weight, fertility and somatic cell count in primiparous dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research In press.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1957. Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Quarterly Reviews of Biology 32: 217–231.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Rheinhold Publishing Corp., NY.Google Scholar
Brown, J. E., Fitzhugh, H. A. Jr and Cartwright, T. C. 1976. A comparison of nonlinear models for describing weight-age relationships in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 42: 810–818.Google Scholar
Cue, R. I., Harris, B. L. and Rendel, J. M. 1996. Genetic parameters for traits other than production in purebred and crossbred New Zealand dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 45: 123–135.Google Scholar
Durbin, J. and Watson, G. S. 1951. Testing for serial correlations in least squares regression. Biometrika 38: 159–165.Google Scholar
Fallon, R. J. and Harte, F. J. 1987. Calf feeding and management. Beef series no. 1. An Foras Taluntais, Dublin.Google Scholar
Gallo, L., Carnier, P., Cassandro, M., Dal Zotto, R. and Bittante, G. 2001. Test-day genetic analysis of condition score and heart girth in Holstein Friesian cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 2321–2326.Google Scholar
García-Muñiz, J. G., Holmes, C. W., Garrick, D. J., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Wickham, B. W., Wilson, G. F., Brookes, I. M. and Purchas, R. W. 1998. Growth curves and productivity of Holstein-Friesian cows bred for heavy or light mature live weight. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58: 68–72.Google Scholar
Grizzle, J. E. and Allen, D. M. 1969. Analyses of growth and dose response curves. Biometrics 25: 357–368.Google Scholar
Groen, A. F. 1989. Economic values in cattle breeding. I. Influence of production circumstances in situations with input limitations. Livestock Production Science 22: 17–30.Google Scholar
Harris, B. L. and Winkelman, A. M. 2000. Influence of North American Holstein genetics on dairy cattle performance in New Zealand. Proceedings of New Zealand Large Herds Conference 6: 122–136.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, A. J., Rogers, G. W. and Cooper, J. B. 1992. Predicting body weight and wither height in Holstein heifers using body measurements. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 3576–3581.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. C. 1997. Optimum body size of Holstein replacement heifers. Journal of Animal Science 75: 836–845.Google Scholar
Horan, B., Mee, J. F., Rath, M., ÓConnor, P. and Dillon, P. 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feeding system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science 79: 453–467.Google Scholar
Kertz, A. F., Reutzel, L. F., Barton, B. A. and Ely, R. L. 1997. Body weight, body condition score, and wither height of prepartum Holstein cows and birth weight and sex of calves by parity: a database and summary. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 525–529.Google Scholar
Koenen, E. P. C. and Groen, A. F. 1996. Genetic analysis of growth patterns of black and white dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 495–501.Google Scholar
Livestock Improvement Corporation. 2003. Dairy statistics 2001/2002. LIC, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
López de Torre, G., Candotti, J. J., Reverter, A., Bellido, M. M., Vasco, P., Gárcia, L. J. and Brinks, J. S. 1992. Effects of growth curve parameters on cow efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2668–2672.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, revised edition. Bulletin of the East Scotland College of Agriculture, no. 6.Google Scholar
Markusfeld, O. and Ezra, E. 1993. Body measurements, metritis, and postpartum performance of first lactation cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 3771–3777.Google Scholar
Pearl, R. and Reed, L. J. 1923. On the mathematical theory of population growth. Metron 3: 6–19.Google Scholar
Perotto, D., Cue, R. I. and Lee, A. J. 1992. Comparison of nonlinear functions for describing the growth curve of three genotypes of dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 773–782.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of Experimental Botany 10: 290–300.Google Scholar
Sieber, M., Freeman, A. E. and Kelley, D. H. 1988. Relationship between body measurements, body weight, and productivity in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 3437–3443.Google Scholar
Silvey, M. W. and Haydock, K. P. 1978. A note on live-weight adjustment for pregnancy in cows. Animal Science 27: 113–119.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2004. User's guide, version 8. 0. 0 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Vaccaro, R. and Rivero, S. 1985. Growth of Holstein Friesian females in the Venezuelan tropics. Animal Production 40: 279–285.Google Scholar
Van Raden, P. M. and Seykora, A. J. 2004. Net merit as a measure of lifetime profit: 2003 revision. http : //aipl. arsusda. gov/reference/ nmcalc. html Accessed 13/04/04.Google Scholar
Visscher, P. M., Bowman, P. J. and Goddard, M. E. 1994. Breeding objectives for pasture based dairy production systems. Livestock Production Science 40: 123–137.Google Scholar
Visscher, P. M. and Goddard, M. E. 1995. Genetic parameters for milk yield, survival, workability, and type traits for Australian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 205–220.Google Scholar
Wada, Y., Matsukawa, T. and Sasaki, Y. 1983. Describing weightage relationships in Japanese Black females with non-linear growth models. World conference on animal production. 5. Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Zootechnical Science, Tokyo, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar
Winsor, C. P. 1932. The Gompertz curve as a growth curve. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 18: 1–8.Google Scholar