Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T05:31:20.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency and performance of genetically high and low milk-producing British Friesian and Jersey cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. P. Gibson
J. P. Gibson
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Genetic lines for high and low liquid milk production were established within the British Friesian and British Jersey breeds by random matings of experimental dams to the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ nationally available progeny-tested sires. Some Friesian dams could also be classified as either high or low for genetic potential for milk yield on the basis of previous, but less rigorously controlled, matings to high-or low-production sires. The dams and their high and low potential-production female progeny were reared indoors, and given a single complete pelleted diet ad libitum from weaning until leaving the experiment after their third calving. Height at withers and width at hooks were recorded monthly, cumulate food intake and body weight fortnightly and milk yield, fat and protein concentration weekly, throughout life in the experiment. Measures of lactation production, food intake and efficiency of conversion of food to milk product during the whole calving-to-calving interval were obtained. Yields were about 0-8 times national average yields. Differences between high and low genetic lines appeared similar for the two breeds. High potential-production progeny produced more liquid milk, fat and protein but at a lower fat and protein concentration than did low-potential progeny. High-potential progeny consumed more food from calving to calving and had higher food conversion efficiencies to liquid milk, fat and protein. The response in efficiency accompanying a given change in production was close to that predicted by phenotypic regression of efficiency on yield with a 0-75% increase in efficiency for every 1% increase in yield. The likelihood of smaller returns in efficiency at higher yields is discussed. High potential-production progeny lost more body weight than did low during lactation, suggesting a greater withdrawal of energy from body reserves. High-potential progeny were neither heavier nor taller but were marginally narrower at the hooks than were low-potential progeny, suggesting the possibility of increased calving difficulties as selection for increased yield continues.

Friesians produced 50% more liquid milk, 13% more milk fat and 29% more milk protein and consumed 22% more food from calving to calving than did Jerseys. As a consequence Friesians were markedly more efficient at producing liquid milk (+23%) but essentially no more efficient at producing milk energy (+2%) than were Jerseys. In terms of both biological and commercial application of the results, any biases in the experiment probably operated against the Jersey relative to the Friesian.

Predictions of food intake using accepted feeding standards underestimated observed total food intake during lactation by a factor of 0-8. Linear regression indicated underestimation of maintenance requirement as a likely explanation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 161 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Banerjee-Schotsman, I. 1964. Tables belonging to a study concerning gestation period in cattle. A biometrical contribution. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Mccutcheon, S. N., Steinhour, W. D., Eppard, P. J. and Sechen, Suzanne J. 1985. Sources of variation and prospects for improvement of productive efficiency in the dairy cow: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 60: 583–592.Google Scholar
Blackmore, D. W., McGilliard, L. D. and Lush, J. L. 1958. Relationships between body measurements, meat conformation and milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 41: 1050–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. W. and Custodio, A. A. 1984. Feed efficiency: a composite trait of dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 67: 2075–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Mcintosh, J. A. R. and Spenck, A. 1970. The evaluation of a device for feeding group-housed animals individually. Anim. Prod. 12: 245–252.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Broster, Valerie J. and Smith, T. 1969. Experiments on the nutrition of the dairy heifer. VIII. Effect on milk production of level of feeding at two stages of the lactation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72: 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, A. M. and Trigg, T. E. 1981. Progress repor t on the performance of Jersey cows differing in breeding index. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 41: 39–43.Google Scholar
Custodio, A. A., Blake, R. W., Dahm, P. F., Cartwright, T. C., Schelling, G. T. and Coppock, C. E. 1983. Relationships betwee n measures of feed efficiency and transmitting ability for milk of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 66: 1937–1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, A. W. F., Grainger, C., Mackenzie, D. D. S., Flux, D. S., Wilson, G. F., Brookes, I. M. and HOLMES, C. W. 1983. Nutritional and physiological studies of differences between Friesian cows of high and low genetic merit. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 43: 67–70.Google Scholar
Federation of United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards. 1983. United Kingdom Dairy Facts and Figures. Federatio n of United Kingdom Milk Marketing Boards, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. E. 1975. Genetic variation in nutrition of dairy cattle. In Effect of Genetic Variance on Nutritional Requirements of Animals, pp. 19–46. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. 1969. The development of a complete diet for cattle. Rep. Anim. Breed. Res. Org., pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
Hickman, C. G. and Bowden, D. M. 1972. Correlate d genetic responses of feed efficiency, growth and body size in cattle selected for milk solids yield. J. Dairy Sci. 54: 1848–1855.Google Scholar
Hind, E. 1978. Efficiency of lean meat production by British Friesian and Jersey steers. Anim. Prod. 27: 181–189.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. and Hanna, M. 1974. Reliable phenotypic and genetic parameters in dairy cattle. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 1, pp. 541–563.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L., Robertson, A. and Gjelstad, B. 1957. The genetic connexion between body size, milk production and efficiency in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Res 24: 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L., Vial, V. E. and Thompson, R. 1972. Genetic parameters of beef characters and the genetic relationship between meat and milk production in British Friesian cattle. Anim. Prod. 14: 135–148.Google Scholar
Meijering, A. and Postma, A. 1984. Morphologic aspects of dystocia in dairy and dual purpose heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1974a. The improved contemporary comparison. Rep. Breed Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd No. 24, pp. 80–86.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1974b. Average yields of recorded herds. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd No. 24, pp. 111–114.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1981. Milk costs 1980–1981. (Working Tables). Booklet 1 — Economic and Physical Features of Dairy Herds. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1980. Nutrient allowances and composition of feeding stuffs for ruminants. Booklet 2987. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Pinner, Middlesex.Google Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1974. Food efficiency in cattle. Rep. Anim. Breed. Res. Org., pp. 40–46.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1978. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 3, Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Shanks, R. D., Freeman, A. E., Berger, P. J. and Kelley, D. H. 1978. Effect of selection for milk production on reproductive and general health of the dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci. 61: 1765–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. A. 1978. A time-controlled feeding system for cattle Anim. Prod. 27: 277–284.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1973. Genetic differences in milk production in relation to mature body weight. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2: 15–26.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animal growth. J. Anim. Sci. 61: suppl. 2, 118–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Turner, H. G. and Young, G. B. 1981. Genetic control of equilibrium maintenance efficiency in cattle. Anim. Prod. 33: 179–194.Google Scholar
Tilakaratne, N., Alliston, J. C., Carr, W. R., Land, R. B. and Osmond, T. J. 1980. Physiological attributes as possible selection criteria for milk production. I. Study of metabolites in Friesian calves of high or low genetic merit. Anim. Prod. 30: 327–340.Google Scholar
Trigg, T. E. and Parr, C. W. 1981. Aspects of energy metabolism of Jersey cows differing in breeding index. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 41: 44–47.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. and Taylor, St C. S. 1983. Dynamic factors in models of energy utilization with particular reference to maintenance requirement of cattle. Wld Rev. Nutr. Dietet. 47: 135–190.Google Scholar
Wainmann, F. W., Smith, J. S. and Dewey, P. J. S. 1975. The nutritive value for sheep of ruminant diet AA6, a complete cobbed diet containing 30% barley straw. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 109–111.Google Scholar
Whitmore, H. L., Tyler, W. J. and Casida, L. E. 1974. Effects of early postpartum breeding in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 38: 339–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed