Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:48:22.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Initial insights on the performances and management of dairy cattle herds combining two breeds with contrasting features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2016

M. A. Magne ,
V. Thénard  and
S. Mihout
M. A. Magne*
Affiliation:
ENFA, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France INRA, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
V. Thénard
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
S. Mihout
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: marie-angelina.magne@toulouse.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Finding ways of increasing animal production with low external inputs and without compromising reproductive performances is a key issue of livestock systems sustainability. One way is to take advantage of the diversity and interactions among components within livestock systems. Among studies that investigate the influence of differences in animals’ individual abilities in a herd, few focus on combinations of cow breeds with contrasting features in dairy cattle herds. This study aimed to analyse the performances and management of such multi-breed dairy cattle herds. These herds were composed of two types of dairy breeds: ‘specialist’ (Holstein) and ‘generalist’ (e.g. Montbeliarde, Simmental, etc.). Based on recorded milk data in southern French region, we performed ANOVA: (i) to compare the performances of dairy herds according to breed-type composition: multi-breed, single specialist breed or single generalist breed and (ii) to test the difference of milk performances of specialist and generalist breed cows (n = 10 682) per multi-breed dairy herd within a sample of 22 farms. The sampled farmers were also interviewed to characterise herd management through multivariate analysis. Multi-breed dairy herds had a better trade-off among milk yield, milk fat and protein contents, herd reproduction and concentrate-conversion efficiency than single-breed herds. Conversely, they did not offer advantages in terms of milk prices and udder health. Compared to specialist dairy herds, they produce less milk with the same concentrate-conversion efficiency but have better reproductive performances. Compared to generalist dairy herds, they produce more milk with better concentrate-conversion efficiency but have worse reproductive performances. Within herds, specialist and generalist breed cows significantly differed in milk performances, showing their complementarity. The former produced more milk for a longer lactation length while the latter produced milk with higher protein and fat contents and had a slightly longer lactation rank. Our results also focus on the farmers’ management of multi-breed dairy herds underlying herd performances. Three strategies of management were identified and structured along two main axes. The first differentiates farmers according to their animal-selection practices in relation with their objectives of production: adapting animal to produce milk with low-feeding inputs v. focussing on milk yield trait to intensify milk production. The second refers to the purpose farmers give to multi-breed dairy herds: milk v. milk/meat production. These initial insights on the performances and management of multi-breed dairy herds contribute to better understanding the functioning of ruminant livestock systems based on individual variability.

Keywords

functional diversitylivestock farming systemperformance trade-offsdairy breedagroecology
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 5 , May 2016 , pp. 892 - 901
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

Agreste 2010. Recensement agricole Midi-Pyrénées. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from www.agreste.fr.Google Scholar
Blanc, F, Bocquier, F, Agabriel, J, D’hour, P and Chilliard, Y 2006. Adaptive abilities of the females and sustainability of ruminant livestock systems. A review. . Animal Research 55, 489–510.Google Scholar
Brussaard, L, Caron, P, Campbell, B, Lipper, L, Mainka, S, Rabbinge, R, Babin, D and Pulleman, M 2010. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 34–42.Google Scholar
Celaya, R, Benavides, R, García, U, Ferreira, LMM, Ferre, I, Martínez, A, Ortega-Mora, LM and Osoro, K 2008. Grazing behaviour and performance of lactating suckler cows, ewes and goats on partially improved heathlands. Animal 2, 1818–1831.Google Scholar
Charroin, T, Veysset, P, Devienne, S, Palazon, R, Ferrand, M and Sup, V 2012. Productivité du travail et économie en élevages d ’herbivores: définition des concepts, analyse et enjeux. INRA Productions Animales 25, 193–210.Google Scholar
D’Alexis, S, Periacarpin, F, Jackson, F and Boval, M 2014. Mixed grazing systems of goats with cattle in tropical conditions: an alternative to improving animal production in the pasture. Animal 8, 1282–1289.Google Scholar
Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Michel, G, Disenhaus, C and Peyraud, JL 2009. Effect of different feeding strategies on lactation performance of Holstein and Normande dairy cows. Animal 3, 891–905.Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Jouven, M, Thomas, M and Tichit, M 2013. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7, 1028–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Thomas, M, Ducrot, C, Dourmad, JY and Tichit, M 2014. Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century. Animal 8, 1382–1393.Google Scholar
Gauly, M, Bollwein, H, Breves, G, Brügemann, K, Dänicke, S, Daş, G, Demeler, J, Hansen, H, Isselstein, J, König, S, Lohölter, M, Martinsohn, M, Meyer, U, Potthoff, M, Sanker, C, Schröder, B, Wrage, N, Meibaum, B, von Samson-Himmelstjerna, G, Stinshoff, H and Wrenzycki, C 2013. Future consequences and challenges for dairy cow production systems arising from climate change in Central Europe: a review. Animal 7, 843–859.Google Scholar
Girard, N, Duru, M, Hazard, L and Magda, D 2008. Categorising farming practices to design sustainable land-use management in mountain areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 333–343.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I 2010. Climate change and the characterization, breeding and conservation of animal genetic resources. Animal Genetics 41, 32–46.Google Scholar
Jackson, LE, Pascual, U and Hodgkin, T 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 121, 196–210.Google Scholar
Jorritsma, R, Wensing, T, Kruip, T, Vos, P and Noordhuizen, J 2003. Metabolic changes in early lactation and impaired reproductive performance in dairy cows. Veterinarian Research 34, 11–26.Google Scholar
Knaus, W 2009. Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 1107–1114.Google Scholar
Mackey, DR, Gordon, AW, McCoy, MA, Verner, M and Mayne, CS 2007. Associations between genetic merit for milk production and animal parameters and the fertility performance of dairy cows. Animal 1, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nauta, WJ, Groen, AF, Veerkamp, RF, Roep, D and Baars, T 2005. Animal breeding in organic dairy farming: an inventory of farmers’ views and difficulties to overcome. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 53, 19–34.Google Scholar
Ollion, E 2015. Evaluer la robustesse des vaches laitières: entre aptitudes biologiques des animaux et stratégies de conduite des éleveurs. PhD, Université d’Auvergne, VetagroSup, Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, PA and Broom, DM 2010. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puillet, L, Martin, O, Sauvant, D and Tichit, M 2010. An individual-based model simulating goat response variability and long-term herd performance. Animal 4, 2084–2098.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Martin, O, Sauvant, D and Tichit, M 2011. Introducing efficiency into the analysis of individual lifetime performance variability: a key to assess herd management. Animal 5, 123–133.Google Scholar
Sørensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J and Christensen, LG 2008. Invited review: crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a Danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.Google Scholar
Tichit, M, Puillet, L, Sabatier, R and Teillard, F 2011. Multicriteria performance and sustainability in livestock farming systems: functional diversity matters. Livestock Science 139, 161–171.Google Scholar
Vance, ER, Ferris, CP, Elliott, CT, Hartley, HM and Kilpatrick, DJ 2013. Comparison of the performance of Holstein-Friesian and JerseyÄHolstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows within three contrasting grassland-based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 151, 66–79.Google Scholar
Wampfler, B 1997. Crises et innovations dans les systèmes productifs agricoles des zones défavorisées. L’Harmattan, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Magne supplementary material

Table S1

Download Magne supplementary material(File)
File 44 KB
Supplementary material: File

Magne supplementary material

Table S2

Download Magne supplementary material(File)
File 44.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Magne supplementary material

Table S3

Download Magne supplementary material(File)
File 45.1 KB