Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:53:45.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of avoparcin and bovine somatotropin on measures of production and reproduction in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. G. Murphy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
D. O'Callaghan*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. Rath
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. H. Austin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
J. F. Roche
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland
*
For correspondence.
Get access

Abstract

The objective was to determine the effects of avoparcin, bovine somatotropin (bST) and the additive effects of both avoparcin and bST on milk yield, milk composition, live-weight changes and reproduction parameters in post-partum dairy cows. Forty-eight autumn calving cows were allocated using a split-plot within randomized complete-block design to the following treatments: (i) control (2 ml saline plus 1 kg untreated concentrate per day); (ii) avoparcin (2 ml saline plus 1 kg concentrate containing 100 mg avoparin per day); (Hi) bST (25 mg bST in 2 ml saline plus 1 kg untreated concentrate per day); and (iv) avoparcin plus bST (25 mg bST in 2 ml saline plus 1 kg concentrate containing 100 mg avoparcin per day). All injections were given subcutaneously and treatment continued for 84 days beginning 55 (s.e. 4) days after calving. The cows were offered grass silage ad libitum supplemented with 7·2 kg cereal-based concentrates daily. Milk yield and milk composition were measured thrice and once weekly, respectively. The cows were weighed and body condition score was assessed every 2 weeks.

Mean daily milk yield of cows assigned to control was 20·1 (s.e. 1·5) kg, avoparcin, 21·5 (s.e. 1·5) kg, bST, 23·9 (s.e. 1·0) kg and avoparcin plus bST, 25·2 (s.e. 1·2) kg over the 84 days of the trial. bST increased milk yield proportionately by 0·18 compared with all cows not given bST (P < 0·01). Avoparcin did not significantly increase milk yield. There was no effect of any treatment on milk composition, body weight or body condition score. None of the experimental treatments had any effect on calving to first service interval, calving to conception interval, number of services per conception or overall conception rate.

These results show that in early lactation, avoparcin alone had no effect on production or reproduction parameters in dairy cows; bST alone increased milk yield but did not affect any other production or reproduction parameter. There was no significant additional increase in milk yield when avoparcin and bST were given in combination, compared with bST alone.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Abubakar, M. M., Rowlinson, P. and Armstrong, D. G. 1988. The influence of the dietary inclusion of the antibiotic avoparcin on the lactation performance of dairy cows. Animal Production 46: 483484 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Eppard, P. J., DeGeeter, M. J. and Lanza, G. M. 1985. Responses of high producing dairy cows to long-term treatment with pituitary- and recombinant-growth hormone. journal of Dairy Science 68: 13521362.Google Scholar
Beever, D. and Parker, L. D. 1989. Effect of duodenally-infused avoparcin on milk protein yield in dairy cows. Cyanamid technical report 777/B3/UK/31/89.Google Scholar
Breier, B. H., Gluckman, P. D., McCutcheon, S. N. and Davis, S. R. 1991. Physiological responses to somatotropin in the ruminant. Journal of Dairy Science 74: suppl. 2, pp. 2034.Google ScholarPubMed
Butler, W. R. and Smith, R. D. 1989. Interrelationships between energy balance and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle. journal of Dairy Science 72: 767783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chilliard, Y. 1989. Long-term effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) on dairy cow performance: a review. In Use of somatotropin in livestock production (ed. Sejrsen, K., Vestergaard, M. and Niemann-Sorenson, A. J.), pp. 6187. Elsevier Applied Sciences, London.Google Scholar
Cole, W. J., Eppard, P. J., Boysen, B. G., Madsen, K. S., Sorbet, R. H., Miller, M. A., Hintz, R. L., White, T. C., Ribelin, W. E., Hammond, B. G., Collier, R. J. and Lanza, G. M. 1992. Response of dairy cows to high doses of a sustained-release bovine somatotropin administered during two lactations. 2. Health and reproduction. journal of Dairy Science 75: 111123.Google Scholar
Dodemaide, W. R. 1985. Avotan avoparcin, growth promoter for early weaned calves and dairy cattle. In Dairy cattle production. University of Sydney, Post-Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science proceedings no. 78, pp. 473508.Google Scholar
Flachowsky, G., Richter, G. H., Ochrimenko, W. I. and Matthey, M. 1990. [Studies on the influence of avoparcin on apparent digestibility, rumen fermentation, fattening and slaughtering performance of growing cattle.] Archives of Animal Nutrition 40: 9911004.Google Scholar
Froetschel, M. A., Croom, W. J., Gaskins, M. R., Leonard, E. S. and Whitacre, M. D. 1983. Effects of avoparcin on ruminal propionate production and amino acid degradation in sheep fed high and low fibre diets. Journal of Nutrition 113: 13551362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hard, D. L., Cole, W. J., Franson, S. E., Samuels, W. A., Bauman, D. E., Erb, H. N. and Lamb, R. C. 1988. Effect of long-term sometribove, USAN (recombinant methionyl bovine somatotropin), treatment in a prolonged release system on milk yield, animal health and reproductive performance-pooled across four sites. journal of Dairy Science 71: suppl. 1, p. 273 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Haresign, W. 1979. Body condition, milk yield and reproduction in cattle. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Lewis, D.), pp. 107122. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. J., Herlugson, M. L., Ojikutu, L. B., Cordova, G., Dyer, I. A., Zimmer, P. and DeLay, R. 1979. Effect of avoparcin and monensin on feedlot performance of beef cattle. journal of Animal Science 48: 13381342.Google Scholar
Leonard, M., Gallo, M., Gallo, G. F. and Block, E. 1990. Effects of a 28-day sustained-release formulation of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) administered to cows over two consecutive lactations. Proceedings of the twenty-third international dairy congress, Montreal, vol. 1, p. 86 (157). International Dairy Federation, Brussels.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1973. Condition scoring of cattle. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, no. 6.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Lewis, M. L., Neilson, D. R., Scott, N. A. and Hunter, E. A. 1991. Complementary influences of exogenous hormone implantation, antibiotic feed addition and supplementary undegradable dietery protein upon the growth, feed intake and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 28: 3752.Google Scholar
Machlin, L. J. 1973. Effect of growth hormone on milk production and feed utilization in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 56: 575580.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, J. K., Garssen, G. J., Tennapel, J., Verplanke, J. C., Brown, A. C. G. and Jonker, L. J. 1991. Effect of treating dairy cows of three breeds with recombinantly derived bovine somatotropin for three years. Livestock Production Science 27: 265284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, D. L. 1988. Response of high-producing cows given daily injections of recombinant bovine somatotropin from D 30-296 of lactation.. journal of Dairy Science 71: suppl., p. 261 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Parker, L. D., Smith, H. and Rock, D. W. 1987. Evaluation of Avotan (avoparcin) for improving milk production of dairy cows in Europe. Animal Production 44: 461 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Peel, C. J., Bauman, D. E., Gorewit, R. C. and Sniffen, C. J. 1981. Effect of exogenous growth hormone on lactational performance in high yielding dairy cows. Journal of Nutrition 111: 16621671.Google Scholar
Peel, C. J., Sandles, L. D., Quelch, K. J. and Herington, A. C. 1985. The effects of long-term administration of bovine growth hormone on the lactational performance of identical-twin dairy calves. Animal Production 41: 135142.Google Scholar
Pensack, J. M., Wang, G. T. and Simkins, K. L. 1982. Avoparcin — a growth promoting feed antibiotic for broiler chickens. Poultry Science 61: 10091012.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F., Craven, N. and Peel, C. J. 1990. Use of prolonged-release bovine somatotropin for milk production in British Friesian dairy cows. 1. Effect on intake, milk production and feed efficiency in two consecutive lactations of treatment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 115: 95104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirke, J. F. and Sheehan, W. 1983. Effect of avoparcin and monensin on the performance of intensively finished lamb. Irish journal of Agricultural Research 22: 141148.Google Scholar
Ronayne, E. and Hynes, N. 1990. Measurement of plasma progesterone concentrations by extraction and non-extraction radioimmunoassays. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 29: 109115.Google Scholar
Spalding, R. W., Everett, R. W. and Foote, R. H. 1975. Fertility in New York artificially inseminated Holstein herds in dairy herd improvement. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 718723.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1985. User's guide: statistics. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, G. 1991. A review of quality and processing suitability of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin. journal of Dairy Science 74: suppl. 2, pp. 211.Google Scholar
Whitmore, H. L., Tyler, W. J. and Casida, L. E. 1974. Effects of early postpartum breeding in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38: 339346.Google Scholar