Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T09:01:11.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-breed relationship of maintenance efficiency to milk yield in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Taylor ,
R. B. Thiessen  and
J. Murray
C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
R. B. Thiessen
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. Murray
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

As part of a multibreed cattle project for studying genetic variation between breeds, four adult females from each of five breeds of cattle were kept for up to 2 years in a non-pregnant, non-lactating state on each of four feeding levels. The breeds, which were Hereford, Aberdeen Angus, Dexter, British Friesian and Jersey, provided a wide range of genetic potential for body size and milk yield. The feeding levels were arranged to make the weight of lipid in the whole body about 0·05, 0·15, 0·25 and 0·35 times body weight. After an animal had been assigned to a fixed daily intake, its body weight and condition score were monitored over a period varying from 6 to 18 months until an equilibrium body weight and body composition had been established.

For standard adult body weight, Akg, and for an equilibrium body weight, Wkg, and an associated metabolizable energy intake, f/MJ, the maintenance efficiency of a breed adjusted for breed size was defined as Em = W/fA0·21. The ‘lactability’ of a breed, that is, its genetic potential lactation yield, Ykg, adjusted for breed size, was defined as Y = Y/A. The between-breed regression of Em on Y had a coefficient of -0·043 (s.e. 0·007). There was, thus, a highly significant dairy-beef gradient in the equilibrium maintenance efficiency of these non-pregnant, non-lactating adult females.

An expected value for the equilibrium maintenance requirement, of a breed or individual as a function of its lactability was estimated to be:

which implies that the maintenance requirement of dairy breeds is about 0·2 times greater than that of beef breeds, a result which was strongly supported by a literature survey, although mean estimates from feeding trials and fasting trials were anomalous.

Combining this result for milk yield with published results on growth rate, leads to the hypothesis that the greater the maximum gross efficiency of a breed for meat or milk production, the less efficiently it maintains itself, not because of any difference in fasting metabolism, but because of a reduced efficiency of food utilization for maintenance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 37 - 61
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
Blaxter, K. L. 1962. The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. 1964. The efficiency of feed conversion by livestock. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society 125: 87–99.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wainman, F. W. 1966. The fasting metabolism of cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 20: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. and Davidson, J. L. 1966. The voluntary intake of food by sheep and cattle in relation to their energy requirements for maintenance. Animal Production 8: 75–83.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.Google 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. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 43: 67–70.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1984. Energy utilization by mature, nonpregnant, nonlactating cows of different types. Journal of Animal Science 58: 234–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flatt, W. P., Moe, P. W., Munson, A. W. and Cooper, T. 1969. Energy utilisation by high producing dairy cows. II. Sumary of energy balance experiments with lactating Holstein cows. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, (ed. Blaxter, K. L., Kielanowski, J. and Thorbek, G.), pp. 235–249. Oriel Press, Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. 1981. Changes occurring in cattle as a consequence of selection for growth rate in a stressful environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1976. Maintenance requirements, fasting metabolism and body composition in different cattle breeds. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, (ed. Vermorel, M.), pp. 209–212. Bussac, Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1977. Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate and efficiency of food utilization in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Animal Production 25: 343–358.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1984. An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. Journal of Animal Science 32: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1974. Energy gain in mature, non-pregnant beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 39: 238 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Gibson, J. P. 1984. The effects of frequency of feeding on milk production of dairy cattle: an analysis of published results. Animal Production 38: 181–189.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. P. 1986. Efficiency and performance of genetically high and low milk-producing Friesian and Jersey cattle. Animal Production 42: 161–182.Google Scholar
Hashizume, T., Kaishio, Y., Ambo, S., Morimoto, H., Masabuchi, T., Abe, M., Horii, S., Tanaka, K., Hamada, T. and Takahashi, S. 1962. [Metabolism of matter and energy in cattle. 3. On the maintenance requirement of energy and protein for Japanese Black breed and Holstein breed cows in Japan.] Bulletin, National Institute of Agricultural Science, Japan, No. G21, pp. 213–311.Google Scholar
Hind, E. 1979. Efficiency of milk production. Annual Report. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, pp. 25–28.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. W., Stephens, D. F., Whiteman, J. V. and Totusek, R. 1975. Performance of 3-year-old Hereford, Hereford × Holstein and Holstein cows on range and in dry lot. Journal of Animal Science 40: 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, J. B. 1962. The maintenance requirements of New Zealand dairy cattle. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 22: 12.Google Scholar
Klosterman, E. W., Sanford, L. G. and Parker, C. F. 1968. Effect of cow size and condition and ration protein content upon maintenance requirements of mature beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 27: 242–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1977. Genstat V, Mark 4.01. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Lemenager, R. P., Nelson, L. A. and Hendrix, K. S. 1980. Influence of cow size and breed type on energy requirements. Journal of Animal Science 51: 566–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledger, H. P. and Sayers, A. R. 1977. The utilization of dietary energy by steers during periods of restricted food intake and subsequent realimentation. 1. The effect of time on the maintenance requirements of steers held at constant live weights. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Rev. ed. Bulletin of the East of Scotland College of Agriculture No. 6.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. and Maule, J. P. 1960. The indigenous livestock of eastern and southern Africa. Technical Communication of the Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics, No. 14.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. 1962. Comparative Nutrition of Man and Domestic Animals. Vol. I. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Moe, P. W., Tyrrell, H. F., Flatt, W. P. 1970. Partial efficiency of energy use for maintenance, lactation, body gain and gestation in the dairy cow. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Schürch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 65–67. Juris Druck and Verlag, Zurich.Google Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1972. The control of appetite in lactating cows. Animal Production 14: 263–281.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 4, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 5th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Neville, W. E. and McCullough, M. E. 1969. Calculated energy requirements of lactating and non- lactating Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 29: 823–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritzman, E. G. and Benedict, F. G. 1938. Nutritional physiology of the adult ruminant. Carnegie Institute Washington No. 494.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A., Ledger, H. P. and Freeman, G. H. 1968. Food intake and live-weight gain comparisons of Bos indicus and Bos taurus steers on a high plane of nutrition. Animal Production 10: 373–380.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. and Wright, I. A. 1983. Factors affecting maintenance requirements of beef cows. Animal Production 37: 329–334.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Genetic size-scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30: 161–165.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Thiessen, R. B. 1984. Multibreed designs for between-breed testing and selection. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Sheep and Cattle Breeding, Pretoria, South Africa, Paper No. 50.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Turner, H. G. and Young, G. B. 1981. Genetic control of equilibrium maintenance efficiency in cattle. Animal Production 33: 179–194.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Young, G. B. 1968. Equilibrium weight in relation to food intake and genotype in twin cattle. Animal Production 10: 393–412.Google Scholar
Thiessen, R. B., Hnizdo, Eva, Maxwell, D. A. G., Gibson, D. and Taylor, St C. S. 1984. Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variation in body weight, growth rate and food intake. Animal Production 38: 323–340.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. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42: 136–190.Google ScholarPubMed
Tyrrell, H. F., Moe, P. W. and Oltjen, R. R. 1974. Energetics of growth and fattening compared to lactation in cattle. In: Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Menke, K. H., Lantzsch, H. J. and Reichl, J. R.), pp. 205–208. Univ. Hohenheim Dokumentationsstelle, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. 1970a. The fasting metabolism of Brahman, Africander and Hereford × Shorthorn cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 24: 599–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vercoe, J. E. 1970b. Fasting metabolism and heat increment of feeding in Brahman × British and British cattle. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Schurch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 85–88. Juris Druck and Verlag, Zurich.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. and Frisch, J. E. 1974. Fasting metabolism, liveweight and voluntary feed intake of different breeds of cattle. In: Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Menke, K. H., Lantzsch, H. J. and Reichl, J. R.), pp. 131–134. Univ. Hohenheim Dokumentationsstelle, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Wainman, 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. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1983. Energetics of maintenance and growth. In Mammalian Thermogenesis (ed. Girardier, L. and Stock, M. J.), pp. 178–207. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. and Smith, J. S. 1974. Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 1. The irrelevance of fasting metabolism. Animal Production 19: 127–139.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Smith, J. S., Crabtree, R. M. and Mollison, G. S. 1976. Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 2. Hereford × British Friesian steers given dried grass or barley. Animal Production 23: 329–340.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Smith, J. S. and Mollison, G. S. 1982. Energy requirements of growing cattle: effect of sire breed, plane of nutrition, sex and season on predicted basal metabolism. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F.), pp. 84–87. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas-NLH.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38: 23–32.Google Scholar