Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:19:11.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suitability of cross-bred cows for organic farms based on cross-breeding effects on production and functional traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

Y. de Haas ,
E. A. A. Smolders ,
J. N. Hoorneman ,
W. J. Nauta  and
R. F. Veerkamp
Y. de Haas*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
E. A. A. Smolders
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Animal Welfare, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
J. N. Hoorneman
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
W. J. Nauta
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, NL-3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands
R. F. Veerkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Data from 113 Dutch organic farms were analysed to determine the effect of cross-breeding on production and functional traits. In total, data on 33 788 lactations between January 2003 and February 2009 from 15 015 cows were available. Holstein–Friesian pure-bred cows produced most kg of milk in 305 days, but with the lowest percentages of fat and protein of all pure-bred cows in the data set. Cross-breeding Holstein dairy cows with other breeds (Brown Swiss, Dutch Friesian, Groningen White Headed, Jersey, Meuse Rhine Yssel, Montbéliarde or Fleckvieh) decreased milk production, but improved fertility and udder health in most cross-bred animals. In most breeds, heterosis had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on milk (kg in 305 days), fat and protein-corrected milk production (kg in 305 days) and calving interval (CI) in the favourable direction (i.e. more milk, shorter CI), but unfavourably for somatic cell count (higher cell count). Recombination was unfavourable for the milk production traits, but favourable for the functional traits (fertility and udder health). Farm characteristics, like soil type or housing system, affected the regression coefficients on breed components significantly. The effect of the Holstein breed on milk yield was twice as large in cubicle housing as in other housing systems. Jerseys had a negative effect on fertility only on farms on sandy soils. Hence, breed effects differ across farming systems in the organic farming and farmers can use such information to dovetail their farming system with the type of cow they use.

Keywords

organic farmingcross-breedingbreed–environment interaction
Type
Farming systems and environment
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 655 - 665
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Akbas, Y, Brotherstone, S, Hill, WG 1993. Animal model estimations of non-additive genetic parameters in dairy cattle and their effect on heritability estimation and breeding value prediction. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110, 105–113.Google Scholar
Baars, T, Barkema, HW 1997. Bulk milk somatic cell count and the use of resources in organic dairy farming – a case study on subclinical mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. In Resource use in organic farming. Proceedings of the 3rd ENOF-workshop (European Network for scientific research coordination in Organic Farming), Ancona, Italy (ed. J Isart and J Llerena), pp. 175–188.Google Scholar
Baars, T, Smolders, G 2004. The investigations of complex management: the story of bulk milk somatic cell counts and deep litter barns. In Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO workshop (Sustainable Animal Health and Food Safety), Witzenhausen, Germany, 25–27 March, pp. 59-69.Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, Schukken, YH, Lam, TJGM, Beiboer, ML, Wilmink, H, Benedictus, G, Brand, A 1998. Incidence of clinical mastitis in dairy herds grouped in three categories by bulk milk somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 411–419.Google Scholar
Barlow, R 1981. Experimental evidence for interaction between heterosis and environment in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 715–737.Google Scholar
Barth, K, Aulrich, K, Haufe, HC, Müller, U, Schaub, D, Schulz, F 2011. Metabolic status in early lactating dairy cows of two breeds kept under conditions of organic farming – a case study. Agriculture and Forestry Research 61, 307–316.Google Scholar
Beerda, B, Ouweltjes, W, Sebeck, LBJ, Windig, JJ, Veerkamp, RF 2007. Effects of genotype by environment interactions on milk yield, energy balance and protein balance. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begley, N, Buckley, F, Pierce, KM, Fahey, AG, Mallard, BA 2009. Differences in udder health and immune response traits of Holstein–Friesians, Norwegian Reds, and their crosses in second lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 749–757.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Lee, JM, MacDonald, KA, Stafford, K, Matthews, L, Roche, JR 2007. Associations among body condition score, body weight, somatic cell count, and clinical mastitis in seasonally calving dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 637–648.Google Scholar
Boichard, D, Bonaiti, B, Barbat, A 1993. Effect of Holstein crossbreeding in the French Black and White cattle population. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1157–1162.Google Scholar
Bolinger, DJ, Albright, JL, Morrow-Tesch, J, Kenyon, SJ, Cunningham, MD 1997. The effects of restraint using self-locking stanchions on dairy cows in relation to behavior, feed intake, physiological parameters, health, and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2411–2417.Google Scholar
Bryant, JR, López-Villalobos, N, Pryce, JE, Holmes, CW, Johnson, DL, Garrick, DJ 2007. Short communication: effects of environment on the expression of breed and heterosis effects for production traits. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1548–1553.Google Scholar
Butler, WR, Smith, RD 1989. Interrelationships between energy-balance and postpartum reproduction function in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 767–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eding, H, De Haas, Y, De Jong, G 2009. Predicting mastitis resistance breeding values from somatic cell count indicator traits. Interbull bulletin 40, 21–25.Google Scholar
Emanuelson, U, Danell, B, Philipsson, J 1988. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell counts, and milk production estimated by multiple-trait restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 467–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Union 1999 (EU). EC Council Regulation No 1804/1999 of July 1999, Supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on Organic Production of Agricultural Products and Indications Referring thereto on Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs to Include Livestock Production. Retrieved November 28, 2011, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:222:0001:0028:EN:PDF.Google Scholar
Evans, RD, Dillon, P, Buckley, F, Berry, DP, Wallace, M, Ducrocq, V, Garrick, J 2006. Trends in milk production, calving rate and survival of cows in 14 Irish dairy herds as a result of the introgression of Holstein–Friesian genes. Animal Science 82, 423–433.Google Scholar
Fall, N, Emanuelson, U 2009. Milk yield, udder health and reproductive performance in Swedish organic and conventional dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Research 76, 402–410.Google Scholar
Freyer, G, König, S, Fischer, B, Bergfeld, U, Cassell, BG 2008. Invited review: crossbreeding in dairy cattle from a German perspective of the past and today. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3725–3742.Google Scholar
Garmo, R, Waage, S, Sviland, S, Henriksen, BIF, Osteras, O, Reksen, O 2010. Reproductive performance, udder health, and antibiotic resistance in mastitis bacteria isolated from Norwegian Red cows in conventional and organic farms. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavia 52, 11–24.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR, Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Hansen, LB 2006. Monitoring the worldwide genetic supply for dairy cattle with emphasis on managing crossbreeding and inbreeding. Proceedings of 8th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerias, Brazil, 13–18 August.Google Scholar
Hardarson, GH 2001. Is the modern high potential dairy cow suitable for organic farming conditions? Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Supplement 95, 63–67.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, LB, Seykora, AJ, Johnson, DG, Linn, JG, Romano, JE, Hazel, AR 2008. Crossbreds of Jersey × Holstein compared with pure Holsteins for production, fertility, and body and udder measurements during first lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1270–1278.Google Scholar
Heizer, EE, Smith, VR, Zehner, CE 1953. A summary of studies comparing stanchion and loose housing barns. Journal of Dairy Science 36, 281–292.Google Scholar
Ivemeijer, S, Smolders, G, Gratzer, E, Winckler, C, Vaarst, M, March, S, Brinkmann, J, Whistance, LK, Roderick, S, Mejdell, C, Hansen, B, Henriksen, BIF, Nicholas, P, Rogerson, I, Leeb, C, Huber, J, Stöger, E, Walkenhorst, M 2012. Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, herd health and production in European organic dairy farm. Livestock Science 145, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorritsma, R, Wensing, T, Kruip, TAM, Vos, P, Noordhuizen, J 2003. Metabolic changes in early lactation and impaired reproductive performance in dairy cows. Veterinary Research 34, 11–26.Google Scholar
Kargo, M, Madsen, P, Norberg, E 2012. Short communication: Is crossbreeding only beneficial in herds with low management level? Journal of Dairy Science 95, 925–928.Google Scholar
Koldeweij, E, Emanuelson, U, Janson, L 1999. Relation of milk production loss to milk somatic cell count. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 40, 47–56.Google Scholar
Krutzinna, C, Boehncke, E, Herrmann, HJ 1996. Organic milk production in Germany. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Algers, B 2003. Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming – a literature review. Livestock Production Science 80, 55–68.Google Scholar
Marley, CL, Weller, RF, Neale, M, Main, DCJ, Roderick, S, Keatinge, R 2010. Aligning health and welfare principles and practice in organic dairy systems: a review. Animal 4, 259–271.Google Scholar
Nauta, WJ, Veerkamp, RF, Brascamp, EW, Bovenhuis, H 2006. Genotype by environment interaction for milk production traits between organic and conventional dairy cattle production in the Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2729–2737.Google Scholar
Nauta, WJ, Groen, AF, Veerkamp, RF, Roep, D, Baars, T 2005. Animal breeding in organic dairy farming: an inventory of farmers’ views and difficulties to overcome. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 53, 19–34.Google Scholar
Nauta, WJ, Baars, T, Saatkamp, H, Weenink, D, Roep, D 2009. Farming strategies in organic dairy farming: effects on breeding goal and choice of breed. An explorative study. Livestock Science 121, 187–199.Google Scholar
NRS 2011. Somatic cell count with test-day model (E-18). Retrieved November 28, 2011, from http://www.cr-delta.nl/nl/fokwaarden/pdf/E18.pdf (retrieved November 12, 2012, from https://global.crv4all.com/68143/67761/67689/67699).Google Scholar
Padel, S 2000. Strategies of organic milk production. In Human–animal relationships: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture (NAHWOA) Workshop, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 21–24 October 2000 (ed. M Hovi and M Bouilhol), pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
Penasa, M, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Evans, RD, Cromie, AR, Dal Zotto, R, Cassandro, M 2010. Crossbreeding effects on milk yield traits and calving interval in spring-calving dairy cows. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 300–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prendiville, R, Pierce, KM, Buckley, F 2009. An evaluation of production efficiencies among lactating Holstein–Friesian, Jersey, and Jersey × Holstein–Friesian cows at pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6176–6185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roesch, M, Doherr, MG, Schaeren, W, Schaellibau, M, Blum, JW 2007. Subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Swiss organic and conventional production systems. Journal of Dairy Research 74, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sewalem, A, Miglior, F, Kistemaker, GJ, Van Doormaal, BJ 2006. Analysis of the relationship between somatic cell score and functional longevity in Canadian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3609–3614.Google Scholar
Smolders, EAA 2001. Preventive measures for animal health and practical means for management support on organic dairy farms in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 5th Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture (NAHWOA) Workshop, Rodding, Denmark, 11–13 November 2001, pp. 113–125.Google Scholar
Smolders, EAA, Van der Werf, J, Van de Mortel, D, Kijlstra, A 2005. Udder health, treatments and pathogens in organic dairy herds in the Netherlands. In Mastitis in dairy production – current knowledge and future solutions. Proceedings of the 4th International Dairy Federation (IDF) International Mastitis Conference, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 12–15 June. (ed. H Hogeveen), pp. 248–253.Google Scholar
Somers, JGCJ, Frankena, K, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN, Metz, JHM 2003. Prevalence of claw disorders in Dutch dairy cows exposed to several floor systems. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2082–2093.Google Scholar
Sorensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J, Christensen, LG 2008. Crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a Danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.Google Scholar
Takagi, M, Yamagishi, N, Lee, IH, Oboshi, K, Tsuno, M, Wijayagunawardane, MPB 2005. Reproductive management with ultrasound scanner-monitoring system for a high yielding commercial dairy herd reared under stanchion management style. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 18, 949–956.Google Scholar
Touchberry, RW 1992. Crossbreeding effects in dairy cattle: the Illinois experiment 1949–1969. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 640–667.Google Scholar
Tyrell, HF, Reid, JT 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cows’ milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1215–1233.Google Scholar
Valle, PS, Lien, G, Flaten, O, Koesling, M, Ebbesvik, M 2007. Herd health and health management in organic versus conventional dairy herds in Norway. Livestock Science 112, 123–132.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, JHJ, De Boer, W 1989. Estimation of genetic parameters in crossbred population of Black and White dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2615–2623.Google Scholar
Van Raden, PM, Sanders, AH 2003. Economic merit of crossbred and purebred US dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1036–1044.Google Scholar
Vance, ER, Ferris, CP, Eilliott, CT, McGettrick, SA, Kilpatrick, DJ 2012. Food intake, milk production, and tissue change of Holstein–Friesian and Jersey × Holstein–Friesian dairy cows within a medium-input grazing system and a high-input total confinement system. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1527–1544.Google Scholar
Ward, WR, Hughes, JW, Faull, WB, Cripps, PJ, Sutherland, JP, Sutherst, JE 2002. Observational study of temperature, moisture, pH and bacteria in straw bedding, and faecal consistency, cleanliness and mastitis in cows in four dairy herds. Veterinary Record 151, 199–206.Google Scholar
Weller, RF, Bowling, PJ 2000. Health status of dairy herds in organic farming. Veterinary Record 146, 80–81.Google Scholar
Zom, RLG, Smolders, EAA 2009. Organic dairy farming with low concentrate input. ASG-rapport 246, June, 26pp.Google Scholar