Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:37:19.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of crossbreeding with Norwegian Red dairy cattle on common postpartum diseases, fertility and body condition score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2018

E. Rinell  and
B. Heringstad
E. Rinell*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
B. Heringstad
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NO-1432 Ås, Norway
*
†E-mail: ellen.rinell@nmbu.no
Get access

Abstract

Norwegian Red bulls, selected in Norway, have been used for crossbreeding with Israeli Holstein on commercial farms. The aim of this project was to investigate Norwegian Red×Israeli Holstein (NRX) performance to see how the daughters perform in a different environment than the one their sires were selected in. This was done by comparing health and fertility of NRX with their Israeli Holstein (HO) counterparts. The data consisted of 71 911 HO records and 10 595 NRX records from 33 855 cows in 23 Israeli dairy herds. Calving events took place between 2006 and 2016. Five postpartum disorders (mean frequency in HO v. NRX, %) recorded by veterinarians were analyzed: anestrus (37.4 v. 41.2), metritis (40.1 v. 28.6), ketosis (11.9 v. 7.1), lameness (7.1 v. 3.1) and retained placenta (6.2 v. 4.0). The incidence of abortions was also analyzed; HO had a mean frequency of 9.9% and NRX 8.2%. These traits were defined as binary traits, with ‘1’ indicating that the disorder was present and a treatment took place at least once, or ‘0’ if the cow did not show signs of that disorder. Days open (i.e. the number of days from calving to conception), body condition score (BCS) recorded on a 1 to 5 scale and changes in BCS from calving to peak lactation were also analyzed. A logistic model was used for the health traits, while days open and BCS were analyzed with linear models. The model included breed group, herd-year of calving, birth year and parity as fixed effects. There was a significantly higher risk (odds ratio for HO v. NRX in parentheses) of ketosis (1.46), metritis (1.78), lameness (2.07), retained placenta (1.41) and abortion (1.13) in HO compared with NRX. Israeli Holstein heifers and cows in parity 3 to 6 had fewer cases of anestrus than NRX but no differences were found between the groups in parities 1 and 2. Body condition score was higher for NRX than HO and there was less change in BCS from calving to peak lactation in NRX compared with HO. Likewise, NRX had fewer days open than HO. Results indicate that crossbreeding can produce cows with better fertility that are less susceptible to postpartum disorders.

Keywords

dairy crossbreedingHolsteinhealthreproductionlameness
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 12 , December 2018 , pp. 2619 - 2626
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

A-Ranberg, IM, Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G, Svendsen, M and Steine, T 2003. Heifer fertility in Norwegian dairy cattle: variance components and genetic change. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2706–2714.Google Scholar
Begley, N, Evans, R, Pierce, K and Buckley, F 2009. Breed and heterosis estimates for milk production, udder health and fertility traits among Holstein and Norwegian Red dairy cattle. In Proceedings of 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Barcelona, Spain, p. 206.Google Scholar
Cartwright, SL, Begley, N, Schaeffer, LR, Burnside, EB and Mallard, BA 2011. Antibody and cell-mediated immune responses and survival between Holstein and Norwegian Red × Holstein Canadian calves. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1576–1585.Google Scholar
Cha, E, Hertl, JA, Bar, D and Gröhn, YT 2010. The cost of different types of lameness in dairy cows calculated by dynamic programming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97, 1–8.Google Scholar
De Haas, Y, Janss, L and Kadarmideen, H 2007. Genetic correlations between body condition scores and fertility in dairy cattle using bivariate random regression models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 277–285.Google Scholar
De Vries, A 2006. Economic value of pregnancy in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3876–3885.Google Scholar
Ezra, E, Van Straten, M and Weller, JI 2016. Comparison of pure Holsteins to crossbred Holsteins with Norwegian Red cattle in first and second generations. Animal 10, 1254–1262.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Patterson, DC, Gordon, FJ, Watson, S and Kilpatrick, DJ 2014. Calving traits, milk production, body condition, fertility, and survival of Holstein-Friesian and Norwegian Red dairy cattle on commercial dairy farms over 5 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 5206–5218.Google Scholar
Flamenbaum, I and Galon, N 2010. Management of heat stress to improve fertility in dairy cows in Israel. Journal of Reproduction and Development 56, 36–41.Google Scholar
Fleischer, P, Metzner, M, Beyerbach, M, Hoedemaker, M and Klee, W 2001. The relationship between milk yield and the incidence of some diseases in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2025–2035.Google Scholar
Geno Global 2016. Total Merit Index. Retrieved on 16 November 2016 from http://www.genoglobal.com/Start/Norwegian-Red/about-norwegian-red/Norwegian-Red-Total-Merit-Index/ Google Scholar
Gillund, P, Reksen, O, Gröhn, YT and Karlberg, K 2001. Body condition related to ketosis and reproductive performance in Norwegian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1390–1396.Google Scholar
Glick, G, Shirak, A, Uliel, S, Zeron, Y, Ezra, E, Seroussi, E, Ron, M and Weller, JI 2012. Signatures of contemporary selection in the Israeli Holstein dairy cattle. Animal Genetics. 43, 45–55.Google Scholar
Grimard, B, Freret, S, Chevallier, A, Pinto, A, Ponsart, C and Humblot, P 2006. Genetic and environmental factors influencing first service conception rate and late embryonic/foetal mortality in low fertility dairy herds. Animal Reproduction Science 91, 31–44.Google Scholar
Haugaard, K and Heringstad, B 2015. Short communication: genetic parameters for fertility-related disorders in Norwegian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1321–1324.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ and Hansen, LB 2012. Short communication: fertility, somatic cell score, and production of Normande × Holstein, Montbéliarde × Holstein, and Scandinavian Red × Holstein crossbreds versus pure Holsteins during their first 5 lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 918–924.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB and Seykora, AJ 2006. Fertility and survival of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4944–4951.Google Scholar
Heringstad, B 2010. Genetic analysis of fertility-related diseases and disorders in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2751–2756.Google Scholar
Heringstad, B, Chang, YM, Gianola, D and Klemetsdal, G 2005. Genetic analysis of clinical mastitis, milk fever, ketosis, and retained placenta in three lactations of Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3273–3281.Google Scholar
Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G and Steine, T 2007. Selection responses for disease resistance in two selection experiments with Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2419–2426.Google Scholar
Hoedemaker, M, Prange, D and Gundelach, Y 2009. Body condition change ante- and postpartum, health and reproductive performance in German Holstein cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 44, 167–173.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, J, Koeck, A, Kistemaker, GJ and Miglior, F 2016. Multiple-trait estimates of genetic parameters for metabolic disease traits, fertility disorders, and their predictors in Canadian Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1990–1998.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, PL, Wilhite, DA, Hahn, GL and Hubbard, KG 1993. The potential effects of climate change on summer season dairy cattle milk production and reproduction. Climate Change 23, 21–36.Google Scholar
Koeck, A., Egger-Danner, C, Fuerst, C, Obritzhauser, W and Fuerst-Waltl, B 2010. Genetic analysis of reproductive disorders and their relationship to fertility and milk yield in Austrian Fleckvieh dual-purpose cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2185–2194.Google Scholar
König, S, Wu, XL, Gianola, D, Heringstad, B and Simianer, H 2008. Exploration of relationships between claw disorders and milk yield in Holstein cows via recursive linear and threshold models. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 395–406.Google Scholar
López-Gatius, F, Santolaria, P, Yániz, J, Rutllant, J and López-Béjar, M 2002. Factors affecting pregnancy loss from gestation day 38 to 90 in lactating dairy cows from a single herd. Theriogenology 57, 1251–1261.Google Scholar
Mendonça, LGD, Abade, CC, da Silva, EM, Litherland, NB, Hansen, LB, Hansen, WP and Chebel, RC 2014. Comparison of peripartum metabolic status and postpartum health of Holstein and Montbeliarde-sired crossbred dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 805–818.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL and Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.Google Scholar
Opsomer, G, Gröhn, YT, Hertl, J, Coryn, M, Deluyker, H and de Kruif, A 2000. Risk factors for post partum ovarian dysfunction in high producing dairy cows in Belgium: a field study. Theriogenology 53, 841–857.Google Scholar
Peter, AT, Vos, PLAM and Ambrose, DJ 2009. Postpartum anestrus in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 71, 1333–1342.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Parker Gaddis, KL, Koeck, A, Bastin, C, Abdelsayed, M, Gengler, N, Miglior, F, Heringstad, B, Egger-Danner, C, Stock, KF, Bradley, AJ and Cole, JB 2016. Invited review: opportunities for genetic improvement of metabolic diseases. Journal of Dairy Sciences 99, 6855–6873.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Woolaston, R, Berry, DP, Wall, E, Winters, M, Butler, R and Shaffer, M 2014. World trends in dairy cow fertility. In Proceedings of 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August 2014, Vancouver, Canada, 680pp.Google Scholar
Rajala-Schultz, PJ, Gröhn, YT and McCulloch, CE 1999. Effects of milk fever, ketosis, and lameness on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 288–294.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2013. Version 9.4. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Silke, V, Diskin, MG, Kenny, DA, Boland, MP, Dillon, P, Mee, JF and Sreenan, JM 2002. Extent, pattern and factors associated with late embryonic loss in dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science 71, 1–12.Google Scholar
Toni, F, Vincenti, L, Ricci, A and Schukken, YH 2015. Postpartum uterine diseases and their impacts on conception and days open in dairy herds in Italy. Theriogenology 84, 1206–1214.Google Scholar
Walsh, S, Buckley, F, Berry, DP, Rath, M, Pierce, K, Byrne, N and Dillon, P 2007. Effects of breed, feeding system, and parity on udder health and milking characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5767–5779.Google 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, 4401–4413.Google Scholar