Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:09:37.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of a stochastic model of a calving distribution for beef cows for formulating optimal natural mating strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. B. Pleasants
A. B. Pleasants
Affiliation:
Whatawhata Research Centre, Private Bag 3089, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

A model of a birthdate distribution for a herd of beef cows is constructed using the probability distributions of the variables that affect reproduction in the cow — anoestrous interval, oestrous cycle length, conception to each oestrus, gestation length, period of mating and the prior calving frequency distribution. The model is general and can be reparamaterized to deal with issues such as intervention to synchronize oestrous cycles among cows in the herd by changing the form of the relevant probability distributions.

The model is applied to the question of what time to begin mating in a herd of beef cows. The average calf live weight at day 200, herd conception rate and proportion of cows calving before the planned start of calving were calculated from the model output. The model parameters given by the anoestrous period, conception rate to each oestrus and the regression between prior calving date and anoestrous period, were varied in a factorial design to investigate a range of circumstances found on a farm. Prior calving distributions were generated by random sampling from eight actual calving frequency distributions.

Generally starling mating earlier produced an advantage in terms of extra calf live weight and herd conception rate. However, the proportion of the herd calving earlier than expected increased with early mating. Thus, the feasibility of early mating depends on the cost to the farmer of dealing with early calving cows as well as the advantage of heavier older calves.

Altering the fixed parameters in the model (variances and covariances, prior calving distributions, mating period) to accommodate the circumstances of herds run under different conditions may produce different results. Model structure allows easy alteration of these parameters and also the introduction of different probability distributions for some variables. This might be necessary to model oestrous synchronization and artificial insemination, issues not considered in this paper.

Keywords

beef cowscalvingmatingstochastic models
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , June 1997 , pp. 413 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Azzam, S. M., Kinder, J. E. and Nielsen, M. K. 1990. Modelling reproductive management systems for beef cattle. Agricultural Systems 34: 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLorenzo, M. A., Spreen, T. H., Bryan, G. R., Beede, D. K. and Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1992 Optimising model: insemination, replacement, seasonal production, and cash flow. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 885–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denham, S. C., Larsen, R. E., Boucher, J. and Adams, E. L. 1991. Structure and behaviour of a deterministic model of reproductive performance in beef cattle. Agricultural Systems 35: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, J. E. and Walpole, R. E. 1980. Mathematical statistics, third edition. Prentice-Hall, London.Google Scholar
Jalvingh, A. W., Arendonk, J. A. M. van and Dijkhuizen, A. A. 1993. Dynamic probabilistic simulation of dairy herd management practices. I. Model description and outcome of different seasonal calving patterns. Livestock Production Science 37: 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, K. L. and Clayton, D. G. 1980. Factors influencing the interval to post-partum oestrus, conception date and empty rate in an intensively managed dairy herd. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 40: 236–239.Google Scholar
Montgomery, G. W. 1985. The effects of season on reproduction in beef cows — a review. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 45: 43–48.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. 1984. Calving dates and subsequent intercalving intervals in New Zealand beef herds. Animal Production 39: 51–57.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. and Cullen, N. G. 1988. Oestrous and reproductive performance of early- and late-calving beef cows. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 31: 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleasants, A. B. and Barton, R. A. 1985. Pre-calving nutrition of Angus beef breeding cows. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 13: 231–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleasants, A. B. and Barton, R. A. 1992. Observations on the length of the postpartum oestrous cycles and their relationship to other reproductive parameters in mature Angus cows calving in the spring of two consecutive years. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleasants, A. B., Barton, R. A., Morris, S. T. and Anderson, W. J. 1991. Optimisation of ‘herd in calf rate’ with respect to the length of the post partum anoestrous period in Angus cows suckling calves. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 51: 459–463.Google Scholar
Pleasants, A. B. and McCall, D. G. 1993. Relationships among post-calving anoestrous interval, oestrous cycles, conception rates and calving date in Angus and Hereford × Friesian cows calving in six successive years. Animal Production 56: 187–192.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive beef production. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schervish, M. J. 1984. Multivariate normal probabilities with error bound. Algorithm AS 195. Applied Statistics 33: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenkamp, J. D. G., Horst, C. van der and Andrew, M. J. A. 1975. Reconception in grade and pedigree Africander cows of different sizes — postpartum factors influencing reconception. South African Journal of Animal Science 5: 103–110.Google Scholar