Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:35:42.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ability of dairy cows to be inseminated according to breed and genetic merit for production traits under contrasting pasture-based feeding systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2016

N. Bedere
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590Saint-Gilles, France
C. Disenhaus*
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590Saint-Gilles, France
V. Ducrocq
Affiliation:
GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
S. Leurent-Colette
Affiliation:
Domaine Expérimental du Pin-au-Haras, INRA, 61310Exmes, France
L. Delaby
Affiliation:
PEGASE, Agrocampus Ouest, INRA, 35590Saint-Gilles, France
Get access

Abstract

Strong genetic selection on production traits is considered to be responsible for the declined ability of dairy cows to ensure reproduction. The present study aimed to quantify the effect of genetic characteristics (breeds and genetic merit for production traits) and feeding systems (FS) on the ability of dairy cows to be inseminated. An experiment was conducted during 9 years on Normande and Holstein cows assigned to contrasted pasture-based FS. Diets were based on maize silage in winter and grazing plus concentrate in spring in the High FS; and on grass silage in winter and grazing with no concentrate during spring in the low FS. Within breed, cows were classified into two genetic groups with similar estimated breeding values (EBV) for milk solids: cows with high EBV for milk yield were included in a Milk-Group and those with high EBV for fat and protein contents were included in a Content-Group. Holstein produced more milk throughout lactation than Normande cows (+2294 kg in the High FS and +1280 kg in the Low FS, P<0.001) and lost more body condition to nadir (−1.00 point in the High FS and −0.80 kg in the Low FS, P<0.001). They also showed a poorer ability to be inseminated because of both a delayed commencement of luteal activity (CLA) and delayed first service (more days from start of the breeding season to first service, DAI1). Cows in the Milk-Group produced more milk than cows in the Content-Group, but milk solids production was similar. Cows in the Content-Group had earlier CLA than cows in the Milk-Group (P<0.01). Genetic group neither affected ovulation detection rate nor DAI1. Within breed and FS, cows with high genetic merit for milk yield had later CLA and DAI1. Cows in the High FS produced more milk and lost less condition to nadir than cows in the Low FS. FS did not affect dairy cows’ ability to be inseminated. However, cows with higher milk protein content, and presumably better energy balance, had earlier CLA (P<0.01) and DAI1 (P<0.10). In addition, higher milk yield was associated with poorer ovulation detection rate and oestrus intensity (P<0.05). The study showed that at similar EBV level for milk solids, selection for increased milk fat and protein content resulted in improved cyclicity and similar oestrous expression and submission rates compared with selection for increased milk yield.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Bazin, S, Augeard, P, Carteau, M, Champion, H, Chilliard, Y, Cuylle, G, Disenhaus, C, Durand, G, Espinasse, R, Gascoin, A, Godineau, M, Jouanne, D, Ollivier, O and Remond, B 1984. Grille de notation de l’état d’engraissement des vaches pie-noires. RNED Bovin, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Bedere, N, Delaby, L, Ducrocq, V, Leurent-Colette, S and Disenhaus, C 2016. Toward improved postpartum cyclicity of primiparous dairy cows: effects of genetic merit for production traits under contrasting feeding systems. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 12661276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, F, O’Sullivan, K, Mee, JF, Evans, RD and Dillon, P 2003. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight, and reproduction in spring-calved Holstein-Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 23082319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carthy, TR, Ryan, DP, Fitzgerald, AM, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2016. Genetic relationships between detailed reproductive traits and performance traits in Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 12861297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagas, LM, Gore, PJS, Graham, G, Macdonald, K.a and Blache, D 2008. Effect of restricted feeding and monopropylene glycol postpartum on metabolic hormones and postpartum anestrus in grazing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 18221833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutullic, E, Delaby, L, Causeur, D, Michel, G and Disenhaus, C 2009. Hierarchy of factors affecting behavioural signs used for oestrus detection of Holstein and Normande dairy cows in a seasonal calving system. Animal Reproduction Science 113, 2237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutullic, E, Delaby, L, Gallard, Y and Disenhaus, C 2011. Dairy cows’ reproductive response to feeding level differs according to the reproductive stage and the breed. Animal 5, 731740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutullic, E, Delaby, L, Gallard, Y and Disenhaus, C 2012. Towards a better understanding of the respective effects of milk yield and body condition dynamics on reproduction in Holstein dairy cows. Animal 6, 476487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, P, Snijders, S, Buckley, F, Harris, B, O’Connor, P and Mee, JF 2003. A comparison of different dairy cow breeds on a seasonal grass-based system of milk production 2. Reproduction and survival. Livestock Production Science 83, 3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Disenhaus, C and Petit, HV 2010. Nutritional sub-fertility in the dairy cow: towards improved reproductive management through a better biological understanding. Animal 4, 11971213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulkerson, W, Wilkins, J, Dobos, RC, Hough, GM, Goddard, ME and Davison, T 2001. Reproductive performance in Holstein-Friesian cows in relation to genetic merit and level of feeding when grazing pasture. Animal Science 73, 397406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautam, G, Nakao, T, Yamada, K and Yoshida, C 2010. Defining delayed resumption of ovarian activity postpartum and its impact on subsequent reproductive performance in Holstein cows. Theriogenology 73, 180189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmore, HS, Young, FJ, Patterson, DC, Wylie, ARG, Law, RA, Kilpatrick, DJ, Elliott, CT and Mayne, CS 2011. An evaluation of the effect of altering nutrition and nutritional strategies in early lactation on reproductive performance and estrous behavior of high-yielding Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 35103526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kafi, M, Mirzaei, A, Tamadon, A and Saeb, M 2012. Factors affecting the occurrence of postpartum prolonged luteal activity in clinically healthy high-producing dairy cows. Theriogenology 77, 421429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, O’Sullivan, K, Buckley, F and Rath, M 2003. The effect of genetic merit for milk production and concentrate feeding level on the reproductive performance of Holstein-Friesian cows in a grass-based system. Animal Science 76, 297308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat, S and Disenhaus, C 2004. A proposition for an updated behavioural characterisation of the oestrus period in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87, 223238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvendahl, P and Chagunda, MGG 2010. On the use of physical activity monitoring for estrus detection in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 249259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madureira, AML, Silper, BF, Burnett, TA, Polsky, L, Cruppe, LH, Veira, DM, Vasconcelos, JLM and Cerri, RLA 2015. Factors affecting expression of estrus measured by activity monitors and conception risk of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 70037014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mészáros, G, Sölkner, J and Ducrocq, V 2013. The Survival Kit: software to analyze survival data including possibly correlated random effects. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 110, 503510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersson, K-J, Berglund, B, Strandberg, E, Gustafsson, H, Flint, APF, Woolliams, JA and Royal, MD 2007. Genetic analysis of postpartum measures of luteal activity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 427434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersson, K-J, Gustafsson, H, Strandberg, E and Berglund, B 2006. Atypical progesterone profiles and fertility in Swedish dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 25292538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piccand, V, Cutullic, E, Meier, S, Schori, F, Kunz, PL, Roche, JR and Thomet, P 2013. Production and reproduction of fleckvieh, brown swiss, and 2 strains of Holstein-Friesian cows in a pasture-based, seasonal-calving dairy system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 53525363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2016. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Roche, JR, Macdonald, K. a, Burke, CR, Lee, JM and Berry, DP 2007. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 376391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roxström, A, Strandberg, E, Berglund, B, Emanuelson, U and Philipsson, J 2001. Genetic and environmental correlations among female fertility traits, and between the ability to show oestrus and milk production in dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 51, 192199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal, M, Darwash, AO, Flint, A, Webb, R, Woolliams, J and Lamming, GE 2000. Declining fertility in dairy cattle: changes in traditional and endocrine parameters of fertility. Animal Science 70, 487501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal, M, Pryce, J, Woolliams, J and Flint, A 2002. The genetic relationship between commencement of luteal activity and calving interval, body condition score, production, and linear type traits in Holstein-Friesian. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 30713080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sveberg, G, Rogers, GW, Cooper, J, Refsdal, AO, Erhard, HW, Kommisrud, E, Buckley, F, Waldmann, A and Ropstad, E 2015. Comparison of Holstein-Friesian and Norwegian red dairy cattle for estrus length and estrous signs. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 24502461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vance, ER, Ferris, CP, Elliott, CT, Hartley, HM and Kilpatrick, DJ 2013. Comparison of the performance of Holstein-Friesian and Jersey×Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows within three contrasting grassland-based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 151, 6679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S, Buckley, F, Pierce, K, Byrne, N, Patton, J and Dillon, P 2008. Effects of breed and feeding system on milk production, body weight, body condition score, reproductive performance, and postpartum ovarian function. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 44014413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, SP and Mullen, KAE 2014. Invited review: genetic considerations for various pasture-based dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 59235938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltbank, M, Lopez, H, Sartori, R, Sangsritavong, S and Gümen, A 2006. Changes in reproductive physiology of lactating dairy cows due to elevated steroid metabolism. Theriogenology 65, 1729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windig, J, Beerda, B and Veerkamp, R 2008. Relationship between milk progesterone profiles and genetic merit for milk production, milking frequency, and feeding regimen in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 28742884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Bedere supplementary material

Bedere supplementary material 1

Download Bedere supplementary material(File)
File 166.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bedere supplementary material

Table S1

Download Bedere supplementary material(File)
File 16.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bedere supplementary material

Table S2

Download Bedere supplementary material(File)
File 37.1 KB