Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:30:44.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in ultrasound measures of muscle and its genetic variation during lactation in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. Sloniewski ,
I. L. Mao ,
J. Jensen  and
P. Madsen
K. Sloniewski*
Affiliation:
Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, fastrzebiec, 05-552 Wolka Kosowska, Poland
I. L. Mao
Affiliation:
department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, DK-8830, Denmark
J. Jensen
Affiliation:
department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, DK-8830, Denmark
P. Madsen
Affiliation:
department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, DK-8830, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Changes in ultrasound measures of muscle area (UtM) during lactation in different breeds and parities and with different feeding levels were examined. Random regressions were fitted to repeated measures of UtM in order to study changes in variance components of UtM during lactation. Correlations between measures taken in different stages of lactation and in different parities were also calculated. The shape of UtM curves during lactation appeared to be fairly consistent for all breeds and parities. The lowest point of all curves coincided with the expected nadir of body reserves during lactation. With lower-than-normal feeding level, the drop of UtM after calving was deeper and the overall level was lower. A major proportion of the variance in UtM was found to be determined by additive genetic variation. In all three breeds studied, repeatability and heritability estimates were high and fairly consistent during lactation and between parities. The very high genetic correlations between measures taken in different periods of lactation suggested that muscle growth and recovery are controlled by the same gene complex throughout lactation.

Our results suggest that UtM, if used jointly with other body measures such as body condition score, could be a useful indicator of tissue mobilization and deposition in the lactating cow, especially during the early stage of lactation.

Keywords

dairy cows lactationenergy balancemusclesregression analysisultrasound
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 365 - 372
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

Broster, W. H. and Broster, V. J. 1998. Body score of dairy cows: review, journal of Dairy Research 65: 155–173.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, R. M., Gregoretti, L., Jans, F., Faissler, D. and Blum, J. W. 1998. Longissimus dorsi muscle diameter, backfat thickness, body condition scores and skinfold values related to metabolic and endocrine traits in lactating dairy cows fed crystalline fat or free fatty acids. Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A 45: 397–410.Google Scholar
Bullock, K. D., Bertrand, J. K., Benyshek, L. L., Williams, S.E. and Lust, D. G. 1990. Comparison of real-time ultrasound and other live measures to carcass measures as predictors of beef cow energy stores. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3908–3916.Google Scholar
Charagu, P. K., Crews, D. H. Jr, Kemp, R. A. and Mwansa, P. B. 2000. Machine effect on accuracy of ultrasonic prediction of backfat and ribeye area in beef bulls, steers and heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80: 19–24.Google Scholar
Domecq, J. J., Skidmore, A. L., Lloyd, J. W. and Kaneene, J. B. 1995. Validation of body condition scores with ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 2308–2313.Google Scholar
Friggens, N. C. 2004. Body lipid reserves and the reproductive cycle: towards a better understanding. Livestock Production Science In press.Google Scholar
Gresham, J. D., Holloway, J. W., Butts, W. T. and McCurley, J. R. 1986. Prediction of mature cow carcass composition from live animal measurements. Journal of Animal Science 63: 1041–1048.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. W., Savell, J. W., Hamby, P. L., Baker, J. F. and Stouffer, J. R. 1990. Relationships of empty body composition and fat distribution to live animal and carcass measurements in Bos indicus-Bos taurus crossbred cows. Journal of Animal Science 68: 1818–1826.Google Scholar
Kettunen, A., Mäntysaari, E. A. and Pösö, J. 2000. Estimation of genetic parameters for daily milk yield of primiparous Ayshire cows by random regression test-day model. Livestock Production Science 66: 251–261.Google Scholar
Kirkland, R. M. and Gordon, F. J. 2001. The effect of stage of lactation on the partitioning of, and responses to changes in, metabolisable energy intake in lactating dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 72: 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, K. A., Penno, J. W., Verkerk, G. A. and Cottle, D. 1999. Validation of body condition scoring by ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 59: 177–179.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. 1987. Methods of describing body composition and maintenance requirements of bulls tested. In Performance testing of Al bulls for efficiency and beef production in dairy and dual-purpose breeds (ed. Korver, S., Averdunk, G. and Andersen, B. B.), pp. 9–15. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. 2002. Test statistics for model comparison using DMUAI. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum.Google Scholar
Madsen, P. and Jensen, J. 2000. A user’s guide to DMU. A package for analysing multivariate mixed models, version 6, release 4. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum.Google Scholar
Mao, I. L., Sloniewski, K., Madsen, P. and Jensen, J. 2004. Changes in body condition score and its genetic variation during lactation. Livestock Production Science In press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. M., Friggens, N. C., Lovendahl, P., Jensen, J. and Ingvartsen, K. L. 2003. The influence of breed, parity and stage of lactation on lactation performance and relationship between body fatness and live weight. Livestock Production Science 79: 119–133.Google Scholar
O′Mara, F. M., Williams, S.E., Tatum, J. D., Hilton, G. G., Pringle, T. D., Wise, J. W. and Williams, F. L 1998. Prediction of slaughter cow composition using live animal and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1594–1603.Google Scholar
Otto, K. A., Ferguson, J. D., Fox, D. G. and Sniffen, C. J. 1991. Relationship between body condition score and composition of ninth to eleventh rib tissue in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 852–859.Google Scholar
Rastani, R. R., Andrew, S. M., Zinn, S. A. and Sniffen, C. J. 2001. Body composition and estimated tissue energy balance in Jersey and Holstein cows during early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 1201–1209.Google Scholar
Sondergaard, E., Sorensen, M. K., Mao, I. L. and Jensen, J. 2002. Genetic parameters of production, feed intake, body weight, body composition and udder health in lactating dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 77: 23–34.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT user′s guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S., Luteijn, P. A. and Meijer, R. G. M. 1997. Changes in composition and energy content of liveweight loss in dairy cows with time after parturition. Livestock Production Science 52: 31–38.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38: 23–32.Google Scholar
Zulu, V. C., Nakao, T., Moriyoshi, M., Nakada, K., Sawamukai, Y., Tanaka, Y. and Zhang, W. C. 2001. Relationship between body condition score and ultrasonographic measurement of subcutaneous fat in dairy cows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 14: 816–820.Google Scholar