Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:24:33.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Performance and financial consequences of stillbirth in Holstein dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

A. Mahnani
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, PO Box 84156, Isfahan, Iran
A. Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, PO Box 84156, Isfahan, Iran
H. Keshavarzi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, PO Box 84156, Isfahan, Iran
Get access

Abstract

Stillbirth is an economically important trait on dairy farms. Knowledge of the consequences of, and the economic losses associated with stillbirth can help the producer when making management decisions. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of stillbirth on productive and reproductive performance as well as financial losses due to stillbirth incidence in Iranian Holstein dairy farms. Economic and performance data were collected from nine Holstein dairy farms in Isfahan and Khorasan provinces of Iran from March 2008 to December 2013. The final data set included 160 410 calving records from 53 265 cows. A linear mixed model was developed to evaluate the effects of stillbirth on performance of primiparous and multiparous cows separately and overall. An economic model was used to estimate the economic losses due to stillbirth. The incidence of stillbirth cases per cow per year was 4.2% on average (3.4% to 6.8% at herd level). The least square means results showed that a case of stillbirth significantly (P<0.05) reduced 305-day milk production in multiparous cows and overall, but had no significant effects on primiparous cows production performance (P>0.05). Overall, a case of stillbirth reduced 305-day milk yield by 544.0±76.5 kg/cow per lactation. Stillbirth had no significant effects on 305-day fat and protein percentages in either primiparous or multiparous cows. Overall, cows that gave birth to stillborn calves had significantly increased days open by 14.6±2.6 days and the number of inseminations per conception by 0.2 compared with cows that gave birth to live calves (P<0.01). In general, the negative productive and reproductive effects associated with stillbirth were smaller and non-significant for primiparous cows compared with multiparous cows. The financial losses associated with stillbirth incidence averaged US$ 938 per case (range from $US 767 to $US 1189 in the nine investigated farms). The loss of a calf was not the only cost associated with stillbirth, as it accounted for 71.0% of the total cost. The costs of dystocia (7.6%) and culling and replacement expenses (6.3%) were the next most important costs associated with stillbirth. These results can be used to assess the potential return from management strategies to reduce the occurrence of stillbirths.

Type
Research Article
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, 223239.Google Scholar
Atashi, H 2011. Factors affecting stillbirth and effects of stillbirth on subsequent lactation performance in a Holstein dairy herd in Isfahan. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research 12, 2430.Google Scholar
Atashi, H, Zamiri, MJ and Sayyadnejad, MB 2011. Non-genetic factors affecting stillbirth and its effects on longevity, production, and reproductive performance in Holstein cows of Iran. Iran Agricultural Research 30, 7382.Google Scholar
Bellows, D, Ott, S and Bellows, R 2002. Review: cost of reproductive diseases and conditions in cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 18, 2632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, B, Steinbock, L and Elvander, M 2003. Causes of stillbirth and time of death in Swedish Holstein calves examined post mortem. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 44, 111120.Google Scholar
Bicalho, R, Galvao, K, Cheong, S, Gilbert, R, Warnick, L and Guard, C 2007. Effect of stillbirths on dam survival and reproduction performance in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 27972803.Google Scholar
Cabrera, VE 2012. A simple formulation and solution to the replacement problem: a practical tool to assess the economic cow value, the value of a new pregnancy, and the cost of a pregnancy loss. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 46834698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candy, RA and Van Vleck, LD 1978. Factors affecting twining and effects of twining in Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 46, 950956.Google Scholar
Chapin, CA and Van Vleck, LD 1980. Effects of twinning on lactation and days open in Holsteins cows. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 18811886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, JB and VanRaden, PM. 2010. Net merit as a measure of lifetime profit: 2006 revision. Retrieved on 12 February 2010 from http://aipl.arsusda.gov/reference.htm Google Scholar
Correa, M, Erb, H and Scarlett, J 1993. Path analysis for seven postpartum disorders of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 13051312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorshorst, NC, Collins, MT and Lombard, JE 2006. Decision analysis model for paratuberculosis control in commercial dairy herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 75, 92122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Tarabany, MS 2015. Impact of stillbirth and abortion on the subsequent fertility and productivity of Holstein, Brown Swiss and their crosses in subtropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47, 13511356.Google Scholar
Emanuelson, U, Oltenacu, PA and Gröhn, YT 1993. Nonlinear mixed model analyses of five production disorders of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 27652772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, M, Misztal, I, Lund, M, Pedersen, J and Christensen, L 2004. Undesired phenotypic and genetic trend for stillbirth in Danish Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 14771486.Google Scholar
Mahnani, A, Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A and Cabrera, V 2015. Consequences and economics of metritis in Iranian Holstein dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 60486057.Google Scholar
Maizon, D, Oltenacu, P, Gröhn, Y, Strawderman, R and Emanuelson, U 2004. Effects of diseases on reproductive performance in Swedish Red and White dairy cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66, 113126.Google Scholar
Mangurkar, B, Hayes, J and Moxley, J 1984. Effects of calving ease-calf survival on production and reproduction in Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 14961509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, C, Berger, P, Koehler, K, Thompson, J and Sattler, C 2001. Phenotypic trends in incidence of stillbirth for Holsteins in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 515523.Google Scholar
Moss, N, Lean, IJ, Reid, SW and Hodgson, DR 2002. Risk factors for repeat-breeder syndrome in New South Wales dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 54, 91103.Google Scholar
Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A, Moradi-Shahrbabak, M, Nejati-Javaremi, A and Amer, PR. 2012. Breeding objectives for Holstein dairy cattle in Iran. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 34063418.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2002. SAS user’s guide v. 9.1: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Silva del Río, N, Stewart, S, Rapnicki, P, Chang, Y and Fricke, P 2007. An observational analysis of twin births, calf sex ratio, and calf mortality in Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 12551264.Google Scholar
Stevenson, JS and Call, EP 1988. Reproductive disorders in the periparturient dairy cow. Journal of. Dairy Science 71, 25722583.Google Scholar
Rajala-Schultz, PJ, Grohn, YT, McCulloch, CE and Guard, CL 1999. Effects of clinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 12131220.Google Scholar