Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:31:34.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of habituation to the milking parlour on the milk production and reproductive performance of first calving Holstein-Friesian and Norwegian dairy herd replacements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

H. C. F. Wicks ,
A. F. Carson ,
M. A. McCoy  and
C. S. Mayne
H. C. F. Wicks*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
A. F. Carson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland and The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
M. A. McCoy
Affiliation:
Veterinary Sciences Division, Stoney Road, Belfast BT4 3SD, UK
C. S. Mayne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland and The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
*
†E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Twenty-nine Holstein-Friesian and 20 Norwegian dairy herd replacements were used to investigate the effect of habituating heifers to the milking parlour environment prior to calving on subsequent lactational performance. The heifers commenced the study at 3 weeks prior to calving when they were allocated on the basis of breed, genetic merit and live weight to either a habituation or no habituation (control) treatment. Heifers were housed together in cubicle accommodation with grass silage offered ad libitum along with 1 kg of concentrates per head per day offered in the feeding passage (control treatment) or in the food managers in the milking parlour (habituation treatment). Animals in the habituation treatment were exposed to the full milking parlour routine once daily (afternoon milking) in a 20-point rotary herringbone parlour. Holstein-Friesian heifers averaged 2.6 kg/day more milk than the Norwegian replacements. Holstein-Friesian heifers also had higher fat and protein yields than Norwegian heifers, however they also lost more body condition during the first 3 months of lactation. Habituated heifers yielded on average 1.3 kg/day more milk (P < 0.001) than the control group of heifers over the first 100 days of lactation (26.7 v. 25.4 (s.e.d. 0.38) kg/day), with the difference being greatest in the first 2 to 3 weeks of lactation. In early lactation, animals on the habituation treatment lost more live weight (0.16 v. 0.02 (s.e.d. 0.061) kg/day) (P < 0.05) and body condition than those on the control treatment. Duration of milking was longer (P < 0.001) (378.4 v. 340.5 (s.e.d. 6.53) s) and milk flow rate slower (P < 0.001) (2.20 v. 2.46 (s.e.d. 0.041) kg/min) respectively for the habituation compared with control group. Somatic cell counts (SCC) were lower (P < 0.001) for habituation group (1.66 v. 1.79 (s.e.d. 0.037) log10 SCC per ml), but there was no significant treatment effect on locomotion scores. Reproductive performance was lower for habituated heifers, with increased intervals to conception (P < 0.05) (102 v. 83 (s.e.d. 9.22) days). Habituating heifers to the milking parlour environment prior to calving increased milk production but appeared to have some detrimental effects on reproductive performance.

Keywords

habituationheifersmilk productionreproduction
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 345 - 354
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

Bahr, T., Preisinger, R. and Kalm, E. 1995. Investigations on somatic-cell count and milkability of dairy-cows. 2. Genetic-parameters of milkability traits. Zuchtungskunde 67: 105–116.Google Scholar
Beam, S. W. and Butler, W. R. 1997. Energy balance and ovarian follicle development prior to first ovulation postpartum in dairy cows receiving three levels of dietary fat. Biology of Reproduction 56: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bremmer, K. J. 1997 Behaviour of dairy heifers during adaptation to milking. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 57: 105–108.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, R. M., Pfeilsticker, H. and Blum, J. W. 1996. Milk yield, oxytocin and β-endorphin gradually normalize during repeated milking in unfamiliar surroundings. Journal of Dairy Research 63: 191–200.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, R. M., Schams, D. and Blum, J. W. 1993. Milk removal in familiar surroundings: concentrations of oxytocin, prolactin, cortisol and β-endorphin. Journal of Dairy Research 60: 449–456.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, R. M., Wellnitz, O. and Blum, J. W. 1997. Inhibition of milk ejection in cows by oxytocin receptor blockage, α-adrenergic receptor stimulation and in unfamiliar surroundings. Journal of Dairy Research 64: 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, W. R. and Smith, R. D. 1989. Interrelationships between energy and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 767–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, A. D. 2002. The effect of breed of dairy cow on oestrus behaviour, fertility and animal performance. Ph. D. thesis, Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
Dodd, F. H. and Neave, F. K. 1951. Machine milking rate and mastitis. Journal of Dairy Research 18: 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat, . 2002. Genstat –release 6.1. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted, Harpenden, VSN International, Oxford.Google Scholar
Grindal, R. J. and Hillerton, J. E. 1991. Influence of milk flow-rate on new intramammary infection in dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Research 58: 263–268.Google Scholar
Grindal, R. J., Walton, A. W. and Hillerton, J. E. 1991. Influence of milk flow-rate and streak canal length on new intramammary infection in dairy-cows. Journal of Dairy Research 58: 383–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinrichs, A. J. 1996. Nutrition and management of replacement cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59: 155–166.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Crawford, A. D. and Mayne, C. S. 2001a. A comparison of the Holstein Friesian and Norwegian cattle breeds for milk production at two levels of nutrient intake Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2001, p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Mayne, C. S. 2002. The effect of two levels of nutrient intake on milk production of two dairy cow genotypes Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2002, p. 12.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S., Fitzpatrick, D. A. and McCoy, M. A. 2001b. Effect of concentrate feed level in late gestation on subsequent milk yield, milk composition and fertility of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 1468–1479.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S. and Marsden, M. 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66: 21–33.Google Scholar
Lacyhulbert, S. J. and Hillerton, J. E. 1995. Physical characteristics of the bovine teat canal and their influence on susceptibility to streptococcal infection. Journal of Dairy Research 62: 395–404.Google Scholar
McEvoy, J. D., Mayne, C. S. and McCaughey, W. J. 1995 Production of twin calves with in vitro fertilised embryos: effects on the reproductive performance of dairy cows. Veterinary Record 136: 627–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manson, F. J. and Leaver, J. D. 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production 47: 185–190.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. and Gordon, F. J. 1995. Implications of genotype ✕ nutrition interactions for efficiency of milk production systems. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. T. L. J., Lawrence F. J., Gordon and Carson, A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 19, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S., McCoy, M. A., Lennox, S.D., Mackey, D. R., Verner, M., Catney, D. C., McCaughey, W. J., Wylie, A. R. G., Kennedy, B. W. and Gordon, F. J. 2002. Fertility of dairy cows in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 150: 707–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, H. E. 2002. Influence of breed and housing system on the behaviour of dairy cows in two behavioural tests. Ph. D. thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. J. 1999. Effect of dry period feeding on post-partum milk production and composition. Livestock Production Science 57: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opsomer, G., Grohn, Y. T., Hertl, J., Coryn, M., Deluker, H. and De Kruif, A. 2000. Risk factors for post partum ovarian dysfunction in high producing dairy cows in Belgium: a field study. Theriogenology 53: 841–857.Google Scholar
Royal, M., Mann, G. E. and Flint, A. P. F. 2000. Strategies for reversing the trend towards subfertility in dairy cattle. Veterinary Journal 160: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J., Munksgaard, L., Marnet, P. G. and DePassille, A. M. 2001. Human contact and the effects of acute stress on cows at milking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 1–14.Google Scholar
Sauer, M. J., Foulkes, J. A., Worsfold, A. and Morris, B. A. 1986. Use of progesterone 11-glucuronide-alkaline phosphate conjugate in a sensitive micro-plate enzymeimmunoassay of progesterone in milk and its application to pregnancy testing in dairy cattle. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 76: 375–391.Google Scholar
Solbu, H. 1994. Cattle breeding in Norway — breeding programme for the future. British Cattle Breeders’ Club Digest 49: 76–78.Google Scholar
Steine, T. 1996. [Breeding work and mastitis. ] Buskap Og Avdratt 48: 8–11.Google Scholar
Steine, T. 1997. Nye vekter i NRF-avlen. Buskap 1: 19.Google Scholar
Waage, S., Sviland, S. and Odegaard, S. A. 1998. Identification of risk factors for clinical mastitis in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 1275–1284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilde, C. and Peaker, M. 1990. Autocrine control of milk secretion. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114: 235–238.Google Scholar