Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:25:53.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian and feeding system on grazing behaviour, herbage intake and productivity in the first lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. Linnane ,
B. Horan ,
J. Connolly ,
P. O'Connor ,
F. Buckley  and
P. Dillon
M. Linnane
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Zoology, Animal Ecology and Plant Science, University College Cork, Ireland
B. Horan
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
J. Connolly
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
P. O'Connor
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
F. Buckley
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. Dillon
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

A comparative study of grazing behaviour, herbage intake and milk production was conducted using three strains of Holstein-Friesian (HF) heifer : 33 high production North American (HP), 33 high durability North American (HD) and 33 New Zealand (NZ) animals. Heifers were assigned, within strain, to one of three grass-based feeding systems : (1) the Moorepark (control) system (MP), (2) a high concentrate system (HC), (3) a high stocking rate system (HS). Strain of HF had no significant effect on grazing time or number of grazing bouts. The NZ strain had longer grazing bouts (P < 0.01) and spent a lower proportion of time ruminating (P < 0.05) than both the HP and HD strains. There was a significant strain ✕ feeding system interaction for biting rate. The biting rate of the NZ strain was reduced in the HC system. Biting rates in the HS feeding system were significantly higher (P < 0.001) than in the MP system. Heifers on HC had shorter grazing time (P < 0.01) with grazing bouts of shorter duration (P < 0.01). Increasing stocking rate (HS) decreased the proportion of time ruminating (P < 0.001) and tended to shorten grazing bouts (P = 0.06). The HP strain had higher (P < 0.05) herbage and total dry matter (DM) intakes than the NZ strain, while the HD strain was intermediate. Concentrate supplementation reduced (P < 0.001) herbage DM intake but increased (P < 0.001) total DM intake. The reduction of herbage DM intake per kg of concentrate DM intake (substitution rate) was greater for the NZ than the HP strain. The HP produced significantly higher milk, fat, protein and lactose yields than the NZ, while the HD strain was intermediate. The milk fat content of the NZ was higher than both the HP and HD strains, while the protein content was higher than the HP strain. Concentrate supplementation (HC v . MP) significantly increased yields of milk and milk components. Milk production responses to the HC system were much greater with the HP than the NZ strain. Increasing stocking rate (MP v . HS) significantly decreased milk protein yield. The results indicate that the choice of strain of HF may depend on the feeding system.

Keywords

genotypegrazingmilk yield
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 169 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Arendonk, J. A. M. van, Nieuwhof, G. J., Vos, H. and Korver, S. 1991. Genetic aspects of feed intake and efficiency in lactating dairy heifers. Livestock Production Science 29: 263–275.Google Scholar
Bargo, F., Muller, L. D., Kolver, E. S. and Delahoy, J. E. 2003. Invited review: production and digestion of supplemented dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, F., Dillon, P., Crosse, S., Flynn, F. and Rath, M. 2000. The performance of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows of high and medium merit for milk production on grass based feeding systems. Livestock Production Science 64: 107–119.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proceedings of the 10th international grassland congress, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 445–452.Google Scholar
Conniffe, D. 1976. Within-herd variance and choice of herd size in grazing experiments. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 15: 349–354.Google Scholar
Coulon, J. B. and Redmond, B. 1991. Variations in milk output and milk protein content in response to the level of energy supply to the dairy cow: a review. Livestock Production Science 29: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaby, L., Peyraud, J. L., Bouttier, A. and Pecatte, J. R. 1999. Effect of grazing conditions and supplementation on herbage intake by dairy cows. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 4: 90.Google Scholar
Delaby, L., Peyraud, J. L. and Delagarde, R. 2001. Effect of the level of concentrate supplementation, herbage allowance and milk yield at turn-out on the performance of dairy cows in mid lactation at grazing. Animal Science 73: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P., Crosse, S., Stakelum, G. and Flynn, F. 1995. The effect of calving date and stocking rate on the performance of spring-calving dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 50: 286–299.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P., Dulphy, J. P., Coulon, J. B., Verite, R., Garel, J. P., Rouel, J. and Marquis, B. 1991. Substitution of roughage by concentrates for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 27: 137–156.Google Scholar
Funk, D. A. 1993. Optimal genetic improvement for the high producing herd. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 3278–3286.Google Scholar
Greenwood, G. B. and Demment, M. W. 1988. The effect of fasting on short-term cattle behaviour. Grass and Forage Science 43: 377–386.Google Scholar
Harris, B. L. and Kolver, E. S. 2001. Review of Holsteinization on intensive pastoral farming in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science 84: (suppl. ) E56–E61.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1982. Ingestive behaviour. In Herbage intake handbook (ed. Leaver, J. D.), pp. 113–138. British Grassland Society, Hurley.Google Scholar
Hull, J. L., Lofgreen, G. P. and Meyer, J. H. 1960. Continuous versus intermittent observation in behaviour studies with grazing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 19: 1204–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J., Dillon, P., Faverdin, P., Delaby, L., Buckley, F. and Rath, M. 2002. The influence of cow genetic merit for milk production on response to level of concentrate supplementation in a grass-based system. Animal Science 75: 433–445.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J., Dillon, P., Delaby, L., Faverdin, P., Stakelum, G. and 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.Google Scholar
Leaver, T. D., Campling, R. C. and Holmes, W. 1968. Use of supplementary feeds for grazing dairy cows. Dairy Science 30: 355–361(abstr. ).Google Scholar
Lindberg, C. M., Swanson, G. J. T. and Mrode, R. A. 1998. Genetic and phenotypic trends in production traits in the United Kingdom (UK) dairy herd. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1998, p. 191.Google Scholar
McGilloway, D. A. and Mayne, C. S. 1996. The importance of grass availability for the high genetic merit dairy cow. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. Wiseman, J. and Haresign, W.), pp. 135–170. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1993. Measuring behaviour, an introductory guide (second edition). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayes, R. W., Lamb, C. S. and Colgrove, P. A. 1986. The use of dosed herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 161–170.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. and Gordon, F. J. 1995. Implications of genotype ✕ nutrition interactions for efficiency of milk production systems. Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J. Gordon, F. J. and Carson, A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 19, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. J., Stakelum, G. and Dwyer, J. 1989. Modified neutral detergent cellulase digestibility procedure for use with the “fibertec” system. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 91–92.Google Scholar
Morley, F. H. W. and Spedding, S. R. W. 1968. Agricultural systems and grazing experiments (review article). Herbage Abstracts 38: 279–287.Google Scholar
Newman, J. A., Parsons, A. J. and Penning, P. D. 1994. A note on the behavioural strategies used by animals to alter their intake rates. Grass and Forage Science 49: 1–5.Google Scholar
O’Connell, J. M., Buckley, F., Rath, M. and Dillon, P. 2000. The effects of cow genetic merit and feeding treatment on milk production, herbage intake and grazing behaviour of dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 39: 369–381.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, M. 2000. The relationship between the performance of dairy cows and grassland management on intensive dairy farms in Ireland. Ph. D. thesis, University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Orr, R. J., Penning, P. D., Rutter, S. M., Champion, R. A., Harvey, A. and Rook, A. J. 2001. Intake rate during meals and meal duration for sheep in different hunger states, grazing grass or white clover swards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75: 33–45.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Hecheimi, K. 1989. The effect of forage supplementation, herbage height and season on the ingestive behaviour of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 203–216.Google Scholar
Rauw, W. M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen Stassen, E. N. and Grommers, F. J. 1998. Undesirable sides effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33.Google Scholar
Rook, A. J., Huckle, C. A. and Penning, P. D. 1994. Effects of sward height and concentrate supplementation on the ingestive behaviour of spring-calving dairy cows grazing grass-clover swards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 101–112.Google Scholar
Rutter, S. M., Orr, R. J., Penning, P. D., Yarrow, N. H. and Champion, R. A. 2002. Ingestive behaviour of heifers grazing monocultures of ryegrass or white clover. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stakelum, G. and Dillon, P. 1990. Influence of sward structure and digestibility on the intake and performance of lactating and growing cattle. In Management issues for the grassland farmer in the 1990s (ed. Mayne, C. S.), occasional publication no. 25, British Grassland Society, Hurley, pp. 30–42.Google Scholar
Stobbs, T. H. 1970. Automatic measurement of grazing time by dairy cows on tropical grass and legume pastures. Tr opical Grasslands 4: 237–244.Google Scholar
Tyrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cows milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215–1233.Google Scholar