Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:39:32.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of age, body weight and body condition score before mating start date on the pubertal rate of maiden Holstein–Friesian heifers and implications for subsequent cow performance and profitability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2012

H. Archbold ,
L. Shalloo ,
E. Kennedy ,
K. M. Pierce  and
F. Buckley
H. Archbold
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. Shalloo
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
E. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
K. M. Pierce
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. Buckley*
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: frank.buckley@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of age, body weight (BW) and body condition score (BCS) of maiden Holstein–Friesian heifers before mating start date (MSD) on the rate of puberty, subsequent production and longevity and their implications with regard to farm profitability. Data were available on 871 Holstein–Friesian heifers from 48 herds. BW was recorded electronically and BCS was recorded by a single operator on a scale of 1 to 5. Heifer age was calculated as the number of days from birth to the day of visit. All of the independent variables of interest were grouped into three or four categories. Three age categories (thirtiles), four BW categories (quartiles) and four BCS categories (⩽2.75, 3.00, 3.25 and ⩾3.50) were formed. Heifers with an identifiable corpus lutuem (CL) in the presence or absence of large follicles and peri-ovulatory signs and with a plasma progesterone (P4) concentration ⩾1 ng/ml were classified as pubertal. In addition, heifers without an identifiable CL in the presence or absence of large follicles and peri-ovulatory signs but with a P4 concentration ⩾1 ng/ml were also classified as pubertal. Age, BW and BCS at MSD were all found to be significantly associated with pubertal rate (P < 0.05). Age was shown to have no practical implications on subsequent cow performance. BW at MSD was favourably associated with subsequent calving date (P < 0.05), subsequent cow BW (P < 0.001) and potential (305 days) milk fat plus protein yield (P < 0.001). BCS at MSD was found to be favourably associated with milk fat plus protein yield potential (P < 0.05) and BCS (P < 0.001) during lactation. The economic analysis undertaken indicated that larger, well-grown heifers will be more profitable because of superior production potential, all else being equal. However, because of the finding of poorer reproductive efficiency in heifers grown to more than 343 kg at MSD, heifers at ∼330 kg at MSD are deemed optimal. This will correspond to mature cow BW of ∼550 kg.

Keywords

heiferbody condition scorebody weightmilk yield
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , 28 May 2012 , pp. 1143 - 1151
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Abeni, F, Calamari, L, Stefanini, L, Pirlo, G 2000. Effects of daily gain in pre and post pubertal replacement dairy heifers on body condition score, body size, metabolic profile and future milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1468–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archbold, H, Buckley, F, Pierce, K, Begley, N, Mee, JF 2011. Ultrasonography and progesterone concentration at a single time point for the purpose of assessing the pubertal status of different dairy breeds. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, in press, http://www.doi:10111/g.1439-0531.2011.01889.x.Google Scholar
Arjie, GF, Wiltbank, JN 1971. Age and weight at puberty in Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 33, 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begley, N, Buckley, F, Pierce, KM, Fahey, AG, Mallard, BA 2009. Differences in udder health and immune response traits of Holstein–Friesians, Norwegian Reds, and their crosses in second lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 749–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brickell, JS, Bourne, N, McGowan, MM, Wathes, DC 2009. Effect of growth and development during the rearing period on the subsequent fertility of nulliparous Holstein-Friesian heifers. Theriogenology 72, 408–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, F, O'Sullivan, K, Mee, JF, Evans, RD, Dillon, P 2003. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight and reproduction in spring-calved Holstein–Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2308–2319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carson, AF, Dawson, LER, McCoy, MA, Kilpatrick, DJ, Gordon, FJ 2002. The effects of rearing regime on body size, milk production and reproductive performance in high genetic merit Holstein–Friesian dairy herd replacements. Journal of Animal Science 74, 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosse, S, Gleeson, P 1988. Rearing replacement heifers for the dairy herd. Proceedings of Moorepark Dairy Farmers Conference, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland, pp. 46–47. Teagasc, Oakpark, Carlow, Co. Carlow, Ireland.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Crosse, S, Stakelum, G, Flynn, F 1995. The effect of calving date and stocking rate on performance of spring calving dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 50, 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobos, RC, Nandra, KS, Riley, K, Fulkerson, WJ, Lean, IJ, Kellaway, RC 2001. Effects of age and liveweight at first calving on first lactation milk, protein and fat yield of Friesian heifers. Australian Journal Experimental Agriculture 41, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrocq, V 1994. Statistical analysis of the length of productive life of dairy cows in the Normande breed. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettema, JF, Santos, EP 2004. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproduction, health, and income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2730–2742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, CL 1982. Effects of post weaning rate of gain on onset of puberty and productive performance of heifers of different breeds. Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1272–1283.Google Scholar
Foldager, J, Serjsen, K, Sorensen, J 1988. The effect of plane of nutrition on growth and feed utilization in RDM and SDM heifers, revision of energy requirements for growth. Report 648, National Institute Animal Science, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Gabler, MT, Tozer, PR, Heinrichs, AJ 2000. Development of a cost analysis spreadsheet for calculating the cost to raise a replacement dairy heifer. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1104–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, RW, Smith, LW, Park, RL 1988. Feeding and management of dairy heifers for optimal lifetime productivity. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 996–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grass, JA, Hansen, PJ, Rutledge, JJ, Hauser, ER 1982. Genotype × environmental interactions on reproductive traits of bovine females. I. Age at puberty as influenced by breed, breed of sire, dietary regimen and season. Journal of Animal Science 55, 1441–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grummer, R, Hoffman, P, Luck, M, Berters, S 1995. Effect of parity and postpartum dietary energy on growth and lactation of primiparous cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrichs, AJ 1993. Raising dairy replacements to meet the needs of the 21st century. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 3179–3187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinrichs, AJ, Vazquez-Anon, M 1993. Changes in first lactation dairy herd improvement records. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, PC, Funk, DA 1992. Applied dynamics of dairy replacement growth and management. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2504–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, PC, Brehm, NM, Price, SG, Prill-Adams, A 1996. Effect of accelerated postpubertal growth and early calving on lactation performance of primiparous Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 2024–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joubert, D 1963. Puberty in female farm animals. Animal Breeding. Abstract 31, 295–297.Google Scholar
Lamond, D 1970. The influence of under nutrition on reproduction in the cow. Animal Breeding. Abstract 38, 359–372.Google Scholar
Le Cozler, Y, Lollivier, V, Lacasse, P, Disenhaus, C 2008. Rearing strategy and optimizing first-calving targets in dairy heifers: a review. Animal 2, 1393–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, CY, McAllister, AJ, Batra, TR, Lee, AJ, Roy, GL, Vesely, JA, Wauthy, JM, Winter, K 1988. Effects of early and late breeding of heifers on multiple lactation performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2735–2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, N, Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, rev. ed. East of Scotland College of Agriculture. Bulletin no. 6, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Macdonald, KA, Penno, JW, Bryant, AM, Roche, JR 2005. Effect of feeding level pre- and post-puberty and body weight at first calving on growth, milk production, and fertility in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3363–3375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, KA, McNaughton, LR, Verkerk, GA, Penno, JW, Burton, LJ, Berry, DP, Gore, PJS, Lancaster, JAS, Holmes, CW 2007. A comparison of three dairy strains of Holstein–Friesian cows grazed on pasture: growth development and puberty. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3993–4003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelsen, TC, Long, CR, Cartwright, TC 1982. Postinflection growth in straightbred and crossbred cattle. II. Relationships among weight, height and pubertal characters. Journal of Animal Science 55, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olori, VE, Galesloot, PJB 1999. Projection of partial lactation records and calculation of 305-day yields in the Republic of Ireland. Interbull meeting, August 26–27, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Olson, KM, Cassell, BG, McAllister, AJ, Washburn, SP 2009. Dystocia, stillbirth, gestation length, and birth weight in Holstein, Jersey, and reciprocal crosses from a planned experiment. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6167–6175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, DJ, Corah, LR, Brethour, JR, Spire, MF, Higgins, JJ, Kiracofe, GH, Stevenson, JS, Simms, DD 1991. Evaluation of reproductive traits in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred heifers: effects of postweaning energy manipulation. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2349–2361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pirlo, G, Capelletti, M, Marchetto, G 1997. Effects of energy and protein allowances in the diets of prepubertal heifers on growth and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 730–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 2006. User's guide version 9.1: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sejrsen, K, Purup, S 1997. Influence of prepubertal feeding level on milk yield potential of dairy heifers: a review. Journal of Animal Science 75, 828–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shalloo, L, Dillon, PG, Rath, M, Wallace, M 2004. Description and validation of the Moorepark Dairy System Model. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1945–1959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, RE, Bellows, RA 1971. Relationships among weight gains, age at puberty and reproductive performance in heifers. Journal of Animal Science 32, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, GM, Fitzhugh, HA, Cundiff, LV, Cartwright, TC, Gregory, KE 1976. A genetic analysis of maturing patterns in straightbred and crossbred Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. Journal of Animal Science 43, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, CS, Fitzhugh, HA 1971. Genetic relationships between mature weight and time taken to mature within a breed. Journal of Animal Science 33, 726–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tozer, PR, Heinrichs, AJ 2001. What affects the costs of raising replacement dairy heifer: a multiple component analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1836–1844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Amburgh, ME, Galton, DM, Bauman, DE, Everett, RW, Fox, DG, Chase, LE, Erb, HN 1998. Effects of three prepubertal body growth rates on performance of Holstein heifers during first lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 527–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vukasinovic, N, Moll, J, Casonova, L 2001. Implementation of a routine genetic evaluation for longevity based on survival analysis techniques in dairy cattle population in Switzerland. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2073–2080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waltner, SS, McNamara, JP, Hillers, JK 1993. Relationship of body condition score to production variables in high producing Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 3410–3419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltbank, JN, Roberts, S, Nix, J, Rowden, L 1985. Reproductive performance and profitability of heifers fed to weigh 272 kg or 318 kg at the start of the first breeding season. Journal of Animal Science 60, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanton, GL, Heinrichs, AJ 2005. Meta-analysis to assess effect of prepubertal average daily gain of Holstein heifers on first-lactation production. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3860–3867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed