Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:06:37.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of energy balance and metabolic profiles of the New Zealand and North American strains of Holstein Friesian dairy cow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2008

J. Patton ,
J. J. Murphy ,
F. P. O’Mara  and
S. T. Butler
J. Patton
Affiliation:
Teagasc, MooreparkDairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, College of Life Sciences, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
J. J. Murphy
Affiliation:
Teagasc, MooreparkDairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
F. P. O’Mara
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, College of Life Sciences, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
S. T. Butler*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, MooreparkDairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co.Cork, Ireland
*
E-mail: stephen.butler@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The milk production, energy balance (EB), endocrine and metabolite profiles of 10 New Zealand Holstein Friesian (NZ) cows and 10 North American Holstein Friesian (NA) cows were compared. The NA cows had greater peak milk yields and total lactation milk yields (7387 v. 6208 kg; s.e.d. = 359), lower milk fat and similar protein concentrations compared with the NZ cows. Body weight (BW) was greater for NA cows compared with NZ cows throughout lactation (596 v. 544 kg; s.e.d. = 15.5), while body condition score (BCS) tended to be lower. The NA strain tended to have greater dry matter intake (DMI) (17.2 v. 15.7 kg/day; s.e.d. = 0.78) for week 1 to 20 of lactation, though DMI as a proportion of metabolic BW was similar for both strains. No differences were observed between the strains in the timing and magnitude of the EB nadir, interval to neutral EB, or mean daily EB for week 1 to 20 of lactation. Plasma concentrations of glucose and insulin were greater for NA cows during the transition period (day 14 prepartum to day 28 postpartum). Plasma IGF-I concentrations were similar for the strains at this time, but NZ cows had greater plasma IGF-I concentration from day 29 to day 100 of lactation, despite similar calculated EB. In conclusion, the results of this study do not support the premise that the NZ strain has a more favourable metabolic status during the transition period. The results, however, indicate that NZ cows begin to partition nutrients towards body reserves during mid-lactation, whereas NA cows continue to partition nutrients to milk production.

Keywords

dairy cowsenergy balancegenetic selectionnutrient partitioning
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 969 - 978
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Bauman, DE 2000. Regulation of nutrient partitioning during lactation: Homeostasis and homeorhesis revisited. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. PB Cronje), pp. 311–328. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, DE, McCutcheon, SN, Steinhour, WD, Eppard, PJ, Sechen, SJ 1985. Sources of variation and prospects for improvement of productive efficiency in the dairy cow: a review. Journal of Animal Science 60, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD, Rath, M, Veerkamp, RF 2003. Genetic relationships among body condition score, body weight, milk yield, and fertility in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2193–2204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brody, S 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Rheinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Butler, WR 2003. Energy balance relationships with follicular development, ovulation and fertility in postpartum dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 83, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, ST, Marr, AL, Pelton, SH, Radcliff, RP, Lucy, MC, Butler, WR 2003. Insulin restores GH responsiveness during lactation-induced negative energy balance in dairy cattle: effects on expression of IGF-I and GH receptor 1A. Journal of Endocrinology 176, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crooker BA, Weber WJ, Ma LS and Lucy MC 2001. Effect of energy balance and selection for milk yield on the somatotropic axis of the lactating Holstein cow: endocrine profiles and hepatic gene expression. In Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Energy Metabolism in Animals (ed. A Chwalibog and K. Jacobsen), pp 345–348. Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Enright, WJ, Chapin, LT, Moseley, WM, Zinn, SA, Kamdar, MB, Krabill, LF, Tucker, HA 1989. Effects of infusions of various doses of bovine growth hormone-releasing factor on blood hormones and metabolites in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Endocrinology 122, 671–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez, CG, Gong, JG, Bramley, TA, Webb, R 2006. Selection on predicted breeding value for milk production delays ovulation independently of changes in follicular development, milk production and body weight. Animal Reproduction Science 95, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, LB 2000. Consequences of selection for milk yield from a geneticist’s viewpoint. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, BL, Kolver, ES 2001. Review of Holsteinization of intensive pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 84 (Suppl), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris BL, Clark JM and Jackson RG 1996. Across breed evaluation of New Zealand dairy cattle. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56, 12 p.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F, Rath, M 2005a. The interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B, Mee, JF, O’Connor, P, Rath, M, Dillon, P 2005b. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feeding system on postpartum ovarian function, animal production and conception rate to first service. Theriogenology 63, 950–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Rath, M, Dillon, P 2006. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian dairy cow and pasture-based system on grass intake and milk production. Animal Science 82, 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrige J. 1989. INRAtion, 1989. V2.7. Microsoft computer program of ration formulation for ruminant livestock. Publishers CNERTA, 26 Boulevard du Docteur Petit Jean 21000, Dijon, France.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Stakelum, G, Rath, M 2003. Effect of genetic merit and concentrate supplementation on grass intake and milk production with Holstein Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 610–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkland, RM, Gordon, FJ 2001. The effect of milk yield and stage of lactation on the partitioning of nutrients in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolver, ES, Napper, AR, Copeman, PJA, Muller, LD 2000. A comparison of New Zealand and overseas Holstein heifers. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60, 265–269.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, N, Somerville, S 1976. Condition Scoring of Cattle. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McCarthy, S, Berry, DP, Dillon, P, Rath, M, Horan, B 2007a. Influence of Holstein-Friesian strain and feed system on body weight and body condition score lactation profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1859–1869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, S, Horan, B, Rath, M, Linnane, M, O’Connor, P, Dillon, P 2007b. The influence of strain of Holstein-Friesian dairy cow and pasture-based feeding system on grazing behaviour, intake and milk production. Grass and Forage Science 62, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, MA, Bauman, DE, Dwyer, DA, Cohick, WS 1995. Nutritional modulation of the somatotropin-insulin-like growth factor system: response to feed deprivation in lactating cows. Journal of Nutrition 125, 493–502.Google ScholarPubMed
McNamara, S, O’Mara, FP, Rath, M, Murphy, JJ 2003. Effects of different transition diets on dry matter intake, milk production, and milk composition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2397–2408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, DJ, Stakelum, G, Dwyer, J 1989. Modified neutral detergent cellulase digestibility procedure for use with the ‘fibertec’ system. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 28, 91–92.Google Scholar
O’Mara, FP, Caffrey, PJ, Drennan, MJ 1997. The net energy value of grass silage determined from comparative feeding trials. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 36, 110.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Coffey, MP, Simm, G 2001. The relationship between body condition score and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1508–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radcliff, RP, McCormack, BL, Crooker, BA, Lucy, MC 2003. Growth hormone (GH) binding and expression of GH receptor 1A mRNA in hepatic tissue of periparturient dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3933–3940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radcliff, RP, McCormack, BL, Keisler, DH, Crooker, BA, Lucy, MC 2006. Partial feed restriction decreases growth hormone receptor 1A mRNA expression in postpartum dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 611–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhoads, RP, Kim, JW, Leury, BJ, Baumgard, LH, Segoale, N, Frank, SJ, Bauman, DE, Boisclair, YR 2004. Insulin increases the abundance of the growth hormone receptor in liver and adipose tissue of periparturient dairy cows. Journal of Nutrition 134, 1020–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, JR, Berry, DP, Kolver, ES 2006. Holstein-Friesian strain and feed effects on milk production, body weight, and body condition score profiles in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3532–3543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS. User’s guide: statistics. 1991. Version 8.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Spicer, LJ, Tucker, WB, Adams, GD 1990. Insulin-like growth factor-I in dairy cows: relationships among energy balance, body condition, ovarian activity, and estrous behaviour. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 929–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrell, HF, Reid, JT 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cows’ milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1215–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veerkamp, RF 1998. Selection for economic efficiency of dairy cattle using information on live weight and feed intake: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1109–1119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, RF, Emmans, GC 1995. Sources of genetic variation in energetic efficiency of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 44, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Thompson, R 1999. A covariance function for feed intake, live weight, and milk yield estimated using a random regression model. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1565–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermorel, M 1989. Energy: the feed unit system. In Ruminant nutrition – recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R. Jarrige), pp 23–32. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris-London-Rome.Google Scholar
Yerex, RP, Young, CW, Donker, JD, Marx, GD 1988. Effects of selection for body size on feed efficiency and size of Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1355–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed