Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T08:46:14.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for milk production: a comparison of Holstein with F1 Montbeliarde × Holstein cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Y. Aharoni ,
A. Brosh  and
E. Kafchuk
Y. Aharoni*
Affiliation:
Department of Cattle and Genetic Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Yaar Research Centre, PO Box 1021, Ramat Yishay, 30095, Israel
A. Brosh
Affiliation:
Department of Cattle and Genetic Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Yaar Research Centre, PO Box 1021, Ramat Yishay, 30095, Israel
E. Kafchuk
Affiliation:
Kibbutz Beit Zera, Emek HaYarden, 15135, Israel
*
†E-mail: yoavah@volcani.agri.gov.il
Get access

Abstract

The objectives were to demonstrate the potential of heat production measurements to characterize the gross and net efficiencies of dairy cows under commercial conditions and to compare the efficiencies of purebred Holstein and Montbeliarde × Holstein F1 dairy cows. The heat productions of seven Holstein (H) and seven Montbeliarde × Holstein (MH) cows were measured over two 10-day periods separated by a 75-day interval, during the summer of 2004, in a commercial high-yielding dairy herd in Israel. Energy expenditure was measured by monitoring heart rates and oxygen consumption per heart beat. Milk yield and composition were recorded for these cows and their investment of energy in the milk was calculated from the milk yield and composition. Live weight and body condition score were also recorded in parallel with these measurements. Metabolizable energy (ME) intake was estimated as the sum of heat production, energy in milk and body energy balance. The MH cows were heavier by 90 kg, had higher body condition scores by 0·9 units and secreted proportionately 0·19 and 0·38 less energy in their milk than H cows in the first and second periods, respectively. The gross energy efficiencies, expressed as the percentage of milk production plus body retention in ME intake were 48·3 and 43·4% in the first period and 45·6 and 32·8% in the second period, for H and MH cows, respectively. The milk production of MH cows in this study was lower than the potential of this cross, however, MH cows that expressed this potential would still be expected to require proportionately 0·10 greater intake of ME than H cows, per unit of energy in milk.

Keywords

crossbreedingdairy cowsefficiencyheart rateheat production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

Agnew, R. E. and Yan, T. 2000. Impact of research on energy feeding systems for dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 66: 197–215.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Aharoni, Y., Brosh, A., Kourilov, P. and Arieli, A. 2003. The variability of the ratio of oxygen consumption to heart rate in cattle and sheep at different hours of the day and under different heat load conditions. Livestock Production Science 79: 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharoni, Y., Brosh, A. and Harari, Y. 2005. Night feeding for high-yielding dairy cows in hot weather: effects on intake, milk yield and energy expenditures. Livestock Production Science 92: 207–219.Google Scholar
Archer, J. A. and Barwick, S. A. 1999. Economic analysis of net feed intake in industry breeding schemes. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Mandurah, Australia, pp. 337–340.Google Scholar
Arieli, A., Kalouti, A., Aharoni, Y. and Brosh, A. 2002. Assessment of energy expenditure by daily heart rate measurement–validation with energy accretion in sheep. Livestock Production Science 78: 99–105.Google Scholar
Arthur, P. F., Archer, J. A., Johnston, D. J., Herd, R. M., Richardson, E. C. and Parnell, P. F. 2001. Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2805–2811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosh, A., Aharoni, Y., Degen, A. A., Wright, D. and Young, B. A. 1998a. Effect of solar radiation, dietary energy, and time of feeding on thermoregulatory responses and energy balance in cattle in a hot environment. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2671–2677.Google Scholar
Brosh, A., Aharoni, Y., Degen, A. A., Wright, D. and Young, B. A. 1998b. Estimation of energy expenditure from heart rate measurements in cattle maintained under different conditions. Journal of Animal Science 76: 3054–3064.Google Scholar
Brosh, A., Aharoni, Y. and Holzer, Z. 2002. Energy expenditure estimation from heart rate: validation by long-term energy balance measurement in cows. Livestock Production Science 77: 287–299.Google Scholar
Brosh, A., Aharoni, Y., Shargal, E., Choshniak, I., Sharir, B. and Gutman, M. 2004. Measurements of energy balance of grazing beef cows in Mediterranean pasture, the effects of stocking rate and season. 2. Energy expenditure estimation from heart rate and oxygen consumption, and the energy balance. Livestock Production Science 90: 101–115.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Sutton, J. D., France, J., Alderman, G. and Humphries, D. J. 2000. An examination of energy utilization in lactating dairy cows receiving a total mixed ration based on maize silage. Animal Science 71: 585–596.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y., Cisse, M., Lefavaire, R. and Remond, B. 1991. Body composition of dairy cows according to lactation stage, somatotropin treatment, and concentrate supplementation. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3103–3116.Google Scholar
Fedak, M. A., Rome, L. and Sheeherman, H. J. 1981. One-step N 2 -dilution technique for calibrating open-circuit VO 2 measuring systems. Journal of Applied Physiology 51: 772–776.Google Scholar
Ferris, C. P., Gordon, F. J., Patterson, D. C., Porter, M. G. and Yan, T. 1999. The effect of genetic merit and concentrate proportion in the diet on nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 132: 483–490.Google Scholar
Fiems, L. O., van Caelenbergh, W., Vanacker, J. M., de Campeneere, S. and Seynaeve, M. 2005. Prediction of empty body composition of double-muscled beef cows. Livestock Production Science 92: 249–259.Google Scholar
Fox, J. T. 2004. Characterization of residual feed intake and relationships with performance, carcass and temperament traits in growing calves. MSc thesis, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Herd, R. M., Archer, J. A. and Arthur, P. F. 2003. Selection for low postweaning residual feed intake improves feed efficiency of steers in the feedlot. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 310–313.Google Scholar
Kebreab, E., France, J., Agnew, R. E., Yan, T., Dhanoa, M. S., Dijkstra, J., Beever, D. E. and Reynolds, C. K. 2003. Alternatives to linear analysis of energy balance data from lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 2904–2913.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M., Swiger, L. A., Chambers, D. and Gregory, K. E. 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22: 486–494.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust, 2003. Genstatwfor Windowse seventh edition. VSN International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lopez-Villalobus, N., Garrick, D. J., Holmes, C. W., Blair, H. T. and Spelman, R. J. 2000. Profitabilities of some mating systems for dairy herds in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 144–153.Google Scholar
McAllister, A. J., Lee, A. J., Barta, T. R., Lin, C. Y., Roy, G. L., Vesely, J. A., Wauthy, J. M. and Winter, K. A. 1994. The influence of additive and non-additive gene action on lifetime yields and profitability of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 2400–2414.Google Scholar
Ngwerume, F. and Mao, I. L. 1992. Estimation of residual energy intake for lactating cows using an animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2283–2287.Google Scholar
Nicol, A. M. and Young, B. A. 1990. Short-term thermal and metabolic responses of sheep to ruminal cooling: Effects of level of cooling and physiological state. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 833–843.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. E. and Herd, R. M. 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 2. Synthesis of results following divergent selection. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44: 431–440.Google Scholar
Thom, E. C. 1959. The discomfort index. Weatherwise 12: 57–59.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. 1949. Crossbreeding of dairy cattle: the Illinois experiment, 1949 to 1969. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 640–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, P. M. and Sanders, A. H. 2003. Economic merit of crossbred and purebred US dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 1036–1044.Google Scholar
Wang, S., Roy, G. L., Lee, A. J., McAllister, A. J., Barta, T. R., Lin, C. Y., Vesely, J. A., Wauthy, J. M. and Winter, K. A. 1992. Evaluation of various measures of and factors influencing feed efficiency of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 1273–1280.Google Scholar
Woods, V. B., Ferris, C. P. and Gordon, F. J. 2005. The weight and concentration of body components in high genetic merit Holstein-Friesian cows managed on four different grassland-based feeding regimes. Animal Science 81: 179–184.Google Scholar