Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:56:05.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association of body weight, loin longissimus dorsi and backfat with body condition score in dry and lactating Holstein dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Jaurena ,
J. M. Moorby ,
W. J. Fisher  and
R. Cantet
G. Jaurena*
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK Departamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía – Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453Buenos Aires (C1417 DSQ), Argentina
J. M. Moorby
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK
W. J. Fisher
Affiliation:
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth SY23 3EB, UK
R. Cantet
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía – Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453Buenos Aires (C1417 DSQ), Argentina
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The lactation cycle of the dairy cow induces large changes in body fat and protein pools, which can be monitored through loin backfat (BF) and longissimus dorsi (LD) measurements. Data from two experiments (exp) using Holstein-Friesian dairy cows (no. = 40 and 32 respectively) were used to study the association of body weight (BW), BF and LD depth with body condition score (BCS) for the last 6 weeks of the dry period (DP) and the first 8 weeks of lactation. Loin and tail BCS were manually assessed (0 to 5 scale) and BF and LD depth were measured by ultrasound at the fifth lumbar process. The BCS data ranged from 1.3 to 3.0 units in the DP, and from about 1.1 to 3.1 units during early lactation in both experiments. Data were analysed by two models: BW, LD or BF = exp + period (DP or lactation) + BCS + interactions + cow + error (model 1); and BCS = exp + period + LD + BF + LD2 + BF2 + exp × LD + exp × BF + exp × LD2 + exp BF2 + period × LD + period × BF + period × LD2 + period × BF2 BF2 + cow + error (model 2).

A first-order autoregressive (AR(1)) covariance structure was employed for the error terms to account for the correlation among repeated measures within cow. Regressions of BW and LD on BCS (model 1) found pre- to post-calving differences (P < 0.001) in intercept for BW and LD, and slope coefficients of 35 (DP) and 21 (lactation) kg BW, and 5.8 mm LD per BCS unit. Regression of BF on BCS (model 1) showed an exp × period interaction (P < 0.001), with 0.4 mm BF (exp 1; P < 0.05) and 2.0 mm BF (exp 2; P < 0.001) per BCS unit. Regression of BCS on LD and BF (model 2) showed intercepts not equal to 0 (P < 0.06), and differences (P < 0.001) between DP and lactation; BCS increased (P < 0.001) by 0.027 units per mm BF and 0.05 units per mm LD, but LD had a quadratic term −0.0004 (P = 0.02). It is concluded that at BCS lower than 3, LD contributes to BCS following a quadratic function, whereas BF causes BCS to increase linearly. Each unit of BCS equated to about 35 and 20 kg BW for DP and lactation periods respectively, to 5.8 mm LD, and to between 0.4 and 2.0 mm BF.

Keywords

body compositionbody fatbody protein
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 219 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1998. Response in the yield of milk constituents to the intake of nutrients by dairy cows. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, report no. 11. CABI Publishing, Oxon.Google Scholar
Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical identification model. The Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineering Transactions on Automatic Control 19: 6.Google Scholar
Butler-Hogg, B. W., Wood, J. D. and Bines, J. A. 1985. Fat partitioning in British Friesian cows: the influence of physiological state on dissected body composition. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104: 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campeneere de, S., Fiems, L. and Boucque, C. 1999. In vivo estimation of body composition in cattle. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews. Series B, Livestock Feeds and Feeding 70: 495–508.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y., Cisse, M., Lefaivre, R. and Remond, B. 1991. Body composition of dairy-cows according to lactation stage, somatotropin treatment, and concentrate supplementation. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3103–3116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domecq, J. J., Skidmore, A. L., Lloyd, J. W. and Kaneene, J. B. 1995. Validation of body condition scoring with ultrasound meaurements of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 2308–2313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonson, A. J., Lean, I. J., Weaver, L. D., Farver, T. and Webster, G. 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, A., Parett, D. F., McKeith, F. K. and Berger, L. L. 1990. Pediction of fat cover and carcass composition from live and carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 68: 604.Google Scholar
Fox, D. G., Amburgh van, M. E. and Tylutki, T. P. 1999. Predicting requirements for growth, maturity and body reserves in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 1968–1977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frood, M. J. and Croxton, D. 1978. The use of condition scoring in dairy cows and its relationship with milk yield and live weight. Animal Production 27: 285–291.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. and Jones, G. P. 1987. The influence of body condition at calving and dietary protein supply on voluntary food intake and performance in dairy cows. Animal Production 44: 347–353.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. and Topps, J. H. 1982. The effect of body condition of dairy cows at calving on their food intake and performance when given complete diets. Animal Production 35: 113–119.Google Scholar
Grainger, C. and McGowan, A. A. 1982. The significance of precalving nutrition of the dairy cow. Proceedings of the conference on dairy production from pasture (ed. Macmillan, K. L. and Taufa, V. K.), pp. 134–171. Clark and Matheson Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Grainger, C., Wilhelms, G. D. and McGowan, A. A. 1982. Effect of body condition at calving and level of feeding in early lactation on milk production of dairy cows. Australian Journal of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 22: 9–17.Google Scholar
Gregory, N. G., Robins, J. K., Thomas, D. G. and Purchas, R. W. 1998. Relationship between body condition score and body composition in dairy cows. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 41: 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, P. L. and Turlington, L. M. 1992. Application of ultrasound for feeding and finishing animals: a review. Journal of Animal Science 70: 930–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaurena, G. 2003. Effect of dry period protein nutrition on subsequent milk production from dairy cows. Ph. D. thesis, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Jaurena, G., Moorby, J. M., Fisher, W. J. and Davies, D. W. R. 2001. Live weight, condition score and Longissimus dorsi responses to energy and protein supplies during the dry period in dairy cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2001, p. 202 (abstr. ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaurena, G., Moorby, J. M., Fisher, W. J. and Davies, D. W. R. 2002. Early lactation responses to red clover or ryegrass silages offered to dairy cows during the dry period. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 2002, 124 (abstr. ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. P. and Garnsworthy, P. C. 1987. Effect of body condition at calving and dietary protein supply on milk yield, milk quality and dry-matter intake in dairy cows. Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal ProductionLisboa.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Henry, P. R. and Ammerman, C. B. 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1216–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. and Somerville, S. 1976. Condition score of cattle. Bulletin no. 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Moorby, J. M., Dewhurst, R. J., Evans, R. T. and Fisher, W. J. 2002a. Effects of level of concentrate feeding during the second gestation of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. 2. Nitrogen balance and plasma metabolites. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 178–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorby, J. M., Dewhurst, R. J., Evans, R. T. and Fisher, W. J. 2002b. Effects of varying the energy and protein supply to dry cows on high-forage systems. Livestock Production Science 76: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulvany, P. 1977. Dairy cow condition scoring. Paper no. 4468, National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading.Google Scholar
Otto, K. L., Ferguson, J. D., Fox, D. G. and Sniffen, C. J. 1991. Relationship between body condition score and composition of 9th to 11th rib tissue in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 852–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S. J., Owen, M. G., Page, S. J. and Fisher, A. V. 1990. Comparison of seven ultrasonic techniques for in vivo estimation of beef carcass composition with special reference to performance testing. Animal Production 51: 489–495.Google Scholar
Reid, I. M., Roberts, C. J., Treacher, R. J. and Williams, L. A. 1986. Effect of body condition at calving on tissue mobilization, development of fatty liver and blood chemistry of dairy cows. Animal Production 43: 7–15.Google Scholar
Roche, J. R., Dillon, P. G., Stockdale, C. R., Baumgard, L. H. and VanBaale, M. J. 2004. Relationships among international body condition scoring systems. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 3076–3079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwager-Suter, R., Stricker, C., Erdin, D. and Künzi, N. 2000. Relationship between body condition scores and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat and m. longissimus dorsi in dairy cows differing in size and type. Animal Science 71: 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1999. SAS OnlineDoc® version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Swokowski, E. 1983. Calculus with analytic geometry. Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984a. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38: 23–32.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984b. Estimation in vivo of the chemical composition of the bodies of mature cows. Animal Production 38: 33–44.Google Scholar
Xu, R. 2003. Measuring explained variation in linear mixed effects models. Statistics in Medicine 22: 3527–3541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed