Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:15:44.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dry cow winter management system on feed intake, performance and estimated energy demand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2009

K. O’Driscoll ,
L. Boyle ,
A. Hanlon ,
F. Buckley  and
P. French
K. O’Driscoll*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Sciences Centre, NUI Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. Boyle
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy Co. Cork, Ireland
A. Hanlon
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Sciences Centre, NUI Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
F. Buckley
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy Co. Cork, Ireland
P. French
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Dairy Production Research Centre, Fermoy Co. Cork, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

This research compared three wood-chip out-wintering pad (OWP; an unsheltered OWP; a sheltered OWP (both with a concrete feed apron); and an unsheltered OWP with silage provided directly on top of the wood-chip bedding (self-feed OWP)) designs and cubicle housing with regard to dairy cow performance during the pre-partum period, and for 8 weeks post partum. Data were compared during 2 years. In Year 1, the unsheltered (space allowance = 12 m2 per cow) and sheltered (6 m2 per cow) OWPs were compared with cubicle housing (n = 49 cows per treatment). In Year 2, all three OWP designs (12 m2 per cow) were compared with cubicle housing (n = 24 cows per treatment, split into two replicates). Animals were dried off and assigned to treatment in the autumn, and remained there until calving in spring. Subsequently, they were managed at pasture during lactation. Outcome measures for analysis during the pre-partum period were feed intake, live weight, body condition score (BCS), heat production and heat loss, and post-partum were live weight, BCS, milk yield and milk composition. In Year 1, all cows had a similar live weight, but both pre-partum and at calving cows on the unsheltered OWP had a lower BCS than cows in cubicles (P < 0.05). However, in Year 2, there were no differences in either live weight or BCS. In Year 1, cows in the unsheltered OWP produced less heat than in cubicles (P < 0.05), but in Year 2, there was no treatment effect. In both years, cows in unsheltered OWPs lost more heat than cows in the sheltered OWP (P < 0.001). Treatment had no effect on milk composition either year. However, in Year 2, cows in the self-feed OWP had higher milk yields than the other treatments (P < 0.05). The lower BCS and heat production values in unsheltered treatments during Year 1 were probably because of higher rainfall and wind-speed values of that year. However, in both years, live weight in all treatments increased pre partum, and BCS did not decrease, indicating that unsheltered cows did not need to mobilise body reserves. Thus, OWPs could be a suitable pre-partum alternative to cubicle housing for dry dairy cows with regard to some aspects of dairy cow productive performance. However, further research should be carried out to investigate longer-term effects.

Keywords

out-winteringdairy cow performanceheat energy
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 2010 , pp. 272 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Autio, E, Heiskanen, M-L, Mononen, J 2007. Thermographic evaluation of the lower critical temperature in weanling horses. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauman, DE, Currie, WB 1980. Partitioning of nutrients during pregnancy and lactation: a review of mechanisms involving homeostasis. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1514–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, A 2003. Effects of body surface area estimates of predicted energy requirements and heat stress. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3605–3610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, LA, Boyle, RM, French, P 2008. Welfare and performance of yearling dairy heifers out-wintered on a wood-chip pad or housed indoors on two levels of nutrition. Animal 2, 769–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brody, S 1945. Bioenergetics and growth with special reference to the energetic efficiency complex in domestic animals, pp. 354–403. Reinhold Publ., New York.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Beauchemin, KA 2005. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3553–3562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, P 1993. The use of n-alkanes as markers to determine intake, botanical composition of available or consumed herbage in studies of digesta kinetics with dairy cows. PhD Thesis. National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Crosse, S, Stakelum, G, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P, Roche, JR, Shalloo, L, Horan, B 2005. Optimising financial return from grazing in temperate pastures. In Utilisation of grazed grass in temperate animal systems (ed. JJ Murphy), pp. 131–147. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P, Stakelum, G 1989. Herbage and dosed alkanes as a grass measurement technique for dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 104 (abstract).Google Scholar
Donnellan, T, Dillon, P, Shalloo, L, Hennessy, T, Breen, J 2002. A dairy farming road map: Where now for dairy farmers? Proceedings of the Teagasc National Dairy Conference, Killarney, Ireland, pp. 13–51.Google Scholar
Egan, J, Leonard, N, Griffin, J, Hanlon, A, Poole, D 2001. A survey of some factors relevant to animal welfare on 249 dairy farms in the Republic of Ireland. Part 1: data on housing, calving and calf husbandry. Irish Veterinary Journal 54, 388–392.Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Verkerk, GA, Morrow, CJ, Matthews, LR 2002. The effects of feed restriction and lying deprivation on pituitary–adrenal axis regulation in lactating cows. Livestock Production Science 73, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameleers, A, Mayes, RW 1998. The use of n-alkanes to estimate supplementary grass silage intake in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 131, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, MC, French, P, Grant, J 2002. Out-wintering pads for finishing beef cattle: animal production and welfare. Animal Science 75, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, KP, Dodd, VA 1989. A model of the bioclimatic value of shelter to beef cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Engineering Research 42, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, P 2004. Study of the effect of winter housing systems on the welfare of pregnant dairy heifers and first lactation cows. The Master of Agriculture Science Thesis. National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, N, Somerville, S 1976. Condition Scoring of Cattle, revised edition, Bulletin no. 6. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS, Colgrove, PA 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricutural Science 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Mulholland, B, Fullen, MA 1991. Cattle trampling and soil compaction in loamy sands. Soil Use and Management 7, 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. National Academic Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, L, French, P, Meaney, B, Hanlon, A 2008a. The effect of out-wintering pad design on dirtiness score, somatic cell score and mastitis incidence in dairy cows. Animal 2, 912–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Driscoll, K, Boyle, L, French, P, Hanlon, A 2008b. The effect of out-wintering pad design on hoof health and locomotion score of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 544–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Driscoll, K, Hanlon, A, Boyle, L 2008c. The effect of out-wintering pad design on the synchrony of dairy cow behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4651–4660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purchas, RW, Barton, RA, Kirton, AH 1980. Relationships of circulating cortisol levels with growth rate and meat tenderness of cattle and sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I, Ehrlemark, A, Redbo-Torstensson, P 2001. Behavioural responses to climatic demands of dairy heifers housed outdoors. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, S, Maher, P, Ryan, T 2002. Cost effective environmental investment. Proceedings of the National Dairy Conference, Killarney, Ireland, Chapter 6.Google Scholar
Reid, JT, Robb, J 1971. Relationship of body composition to energy intake and energetic efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 553–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, JF 2006. The effect of nutritional management of the dairy cow on reproductive efficiency. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schröder, UJ, Staufenbiel, R 2006. Invited Review: Methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shalloo, L, Dillon, P, O’Loughlin, J, Rath, M, Wallace, M 2004. Comparison of a pasture-based system of milk production on a high rainfall, heavy-clay soil with that on a lower rainfall, free-draining soil. Grass and Forage Science 59, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, HJ, Taweel, HZ, Tas, BM, Tamminga, S, Elgersma, A 2005. Comparison of techniques for estimating herbage intake of grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1827–1836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR, Verkerk, GA, Kendall, PE, Webster, JR, Matthews, LR 2007. Effects of shelter and body condition on the behaviour and physiology of dairy cattle in winter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, DG 1988. Effects of cold stress on cattle performance and management factors to reduce cold stress and improve performance. The Bovine Practitioner 23, 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, JR, Stewart, M, Rogers, AR, Verkerk, GA 2008. Assessment of welfare from physiological and behavioural responses of New Zealand dairy cows exposed to cold and wet conditions. Animal Welfare 17, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Maybe, CS, Keady, TWJ, Agnew, RE 2006. Effects of dairy cow genotype with two planes of nutrition on energy partitioning between milk and body tissue. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1031–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, BA 1981. Cold stress as it affects animal production. Journal of Animal Science 52, 154–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed