Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:49:31.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing and validating a model to predict the dry matter intake of grazing lactating beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2019

M. Williams ,
R. Prendiville ,
K. O’Sullivan ,
S. McCabe ,
E. Kennedy ,
M. Liddane  and
F. Buckley
M. Williams
Affiliation:
Animal Bioscience Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 P302, Ireland
R. Prendiville
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, C15 PW93, Ireland
K. O’Sullivan
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University College Cork, T12 XF62Ireland
S. McCabe
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, C15 PW93, Ireland School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern BT7 1 NN, Ireland
E. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Grassland Science Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 P302, Ireland
M. Liddane
Affiliation:
Grassland Science Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 P302, Ireland
F. Buckley*
Affiliation:
Animal Bioscience Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 P302, Ireland
*
†Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Current techniques for measuring the dry matter intake (DMI) of grazing lactating beef cows are invasive, time consuming and expensive making them impractical for use on commercial farms. This study was undertaken to explore the potential to develop and validate a model to predict DMI of grazing lactating beef cows, which could be applied in a commercial farm setting, using non-invasive animal measurements. The calibration dataset used to develop the model was comprised of 94 measurements recorded on 106 beef or beef–dairy crossbred cows (maternal origin). The potential of body measurements, linear type scoring, grazing behaviour and thermal imaging to predict DMI in combination with known biologically plausible adjustment variables and energy sinks was investigated. Multivariable regression models were constructed for each independent variable using SAS PROC REG and contained milk yield, BW, parity, calving day and maternal origin (dairy or beef). Of the 94 variables tested, 32 showed an association with DMI (P < 0.25) upon multivariable analysis. These variables were incorporated into a backwards linear regression model using SAS PROC REG. Variables were retained in this model if P < 0.05. Five variables; width at pins, full body depth, ruminating mastications, central ligament and rump width score, were retained in the model in addition to milk yield, BW, parity, calving day and maternal origin. The inclusion of these variables in the model increased the predictability of DMI by 0.23 (R2 = 0.68) when compared to a model containing milk yield, BW, parity, calving day and maternal origin only. This model was applied to data recorded on an independent dataset; a herd of 60 lactating beef cows two years after the calibration study. The R2 for the validation was 0.59. Estimates of DMI are required for measuring feed efficiency. While acknowledging challenges in applicability, the findings suggest a model such as that developed in this study may be used as a tool to more easily and less invasively estimate DMI on large populations of commercial beef cows, and therefore measure feed efficiency.

Keywords

non-invasiveanimal measurementsmodellingefficiencycrossbred cows
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 11 , November 2019 , pp. 2639 - 2649
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Allen, MS 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3063–3075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alphonsus, C, Akpa, GN and Oni, OO 2009. Repeatability of objective measurements of linear udder and body conformation traits in Frisian X Bunaji cows. Animal Production Research Advances 5, 224–231.Google Scholar
Azzaro, G, Caccamo, M, Ferguson, JD, Battiato, S, Farinella, GM, Guarnera, GC, Puglisi, G, Petriglieri, R and Licitra, G 2011. Objective estimation of body condition score by modeling cow body shape from digital images. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2126–2137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beal, WE, Notter, DR and Akers, RM 1990. Techniques for estimation of milk yield in beef cows and relationships of milk yield to calf weight gain and postpartum reproduction. Journal of Animal Science 68, 937–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beecher, M, Buckley, F, Waters, SM, Boland, TM, Enriquez-Hidalgo, D, Deighton, MH, O’Donovan, M and Lewis, E 2014. Gastrointestinal tract size, total-tract digestibility, and rumen microflora in different dairy cow genotypes. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 3906–3917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP and Crowley, JJ 2013. Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1594–1613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Veerkamp, RF and Dillon, P 2006. Phenotypic profiles for body weight, body condition score, energy intake, and energy balance across different parities and concentrate feeding levels. Livestock Science 104, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, F, Holmes, C and Keane, M 2005. Genetics characteristics required in dairy and beef cattle for temperate grazing systems. In Proceedings of a satellite workshop of the 20th International Grassland Congress, July 2005, Cork, Ireland (ed. Murphy, JJ) pp. 61–79. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Byrne, DT, Berry, DP, Esmonde, H and McHugh, N 2017. Temporal, spatial, inter-, and intra-cow repeatability of thermal imaging. Journal of Animal Science 95, 970–979.Google ScholarPubMed
Dillon, P and Stakelum, G 1989. Herbage and dosed alkanes as a grass measurement technique for dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 104 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Erdem, H, Atasever, S and Kul, E 2010. Relationships of milkability traits to udder characteristics, milk yield and somatic cell count in Jersey Cows. Journal of Applied Animal Research 37, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O’Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D and Wallace, M 2010. Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms. Journal of Farm Management 14, 95–116.Google Scholar
Fuentes-Pila, J, Delorenzo, MA, Beede, DK, Staples, CR and Holter, JB 1996. Evaluation of equations based on animal factors to predict intake of lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1562–1571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huntington, G, Cassady, J, Gray, K, Poore, M, Whisnant, S and Hansen, G 2012. Use of digital infrared thermal imaging to assess feed efficiency in Angus bulls 1. The Professional Animal Scientist 28, 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICBF (Irish Cattle Breeding Federation) 2002. Linear scoring reference guide 2002. ICBF Society Ltd., Highfield House, Bandon, Co. Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
IHFA (Irish Holstein Friesian Association) 2016. A guide to confirmation and type classification. Irish Holstein Friesian Association, Clonakilty, West Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
Lowman, B, Scott, N and Somerville, S 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, revised edition. Bulletin no 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Manafiazar, G, Goonewardene, L, Miglior, F, Crews, DH Jr, Basarab, JA, Okine, E, and Wang, Z 2015. Genetic and phenotypic correlations among feed efficiency, production and selected conformation traits in dairy cows. Animal 10, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martz, FA and Belyea, RL 1986. Role of particle size and forage quality in digestion and passage by cattle and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 1996–2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, CH and Perreault, WD Jr 1991. Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 28, 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS and Colgrove, PM 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. The Journal of Agricultural Science 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, S, McHugh, N and Prendiville, R 2017. Evaluation of production efficiencies among primiparous suckler cows of diverse genetic index at pasture. Advances in Animal Biosciences 8, s55–s59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2005. Effect of suckler cow genotype on milk yield and pre-weaning calf performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 185–194.Google Scholar
Montanholi, YR, Swanson, KC, Palme, R, Schenkel, FS, McBride, BW, Lu, D and Miller, SP 2010. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior, infrared thermography and glucocorticoids. Animal 4, 692–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, BM, Drennan, MJ, O’Mara, FP and McGee, M 2008. Performance and feed intake of five beef suckler cow genotypes and pre-weaning growth of their progeny. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 47, 13–25.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Crews, DH Jr, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Wang, Z, LI, C and Moore, SS 2007. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2382–2390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, BF, Lewis, E, O’Donovan, M, Shalloo, M, Mulligan, FJ, Boland, TM andDelagarde, R 2013. Evaluation of the GrazeIN model of grass dry-matter intake and milk production prediction for dairy cows in termperate grass-based production systems. 1-Sward characteristics and grazing management factors. Grass and Forage Science 68, 504–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, C, Hartung, E, Grothmann, A, Mahlkow-Nerge, K and Haeussermann, A 2016. Suitability of feeding and chewing time for estimation of feed intake in dairy cows. Animal 10, 1507–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prendiville, R, Lewis, E, Pierce, KM and Buckley, F 2010. Comparative grazing behavior of lactating Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, and Jersey x Holstein-Friesian dairy cows and its association with intake capacity and production efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 764–774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pszczola, M, Veerkamp, RF, de Haas, Y, Wall, E, Strabel, T and Calus, MPL 2013. Effect of predictor traits on accuracy of genomic breeding values for feed intake based on a limited cow reference population. Animal 7, 1759–1768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, SM, Champion, RA and Penning, PD 1997. An automatic system to record foraging behaviour in free-ranging ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, SM 2000. Graze: a program to analyze recordings of the jaw movements of ruminants. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 32, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smit, HJ, Taweel, HZ, Tas, BM, Tamminga, S and Elgersma, A 2005. Comparison of techniques for estimating herbage intake of grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1827–1836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steen, RWJ 1995. The effect of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on growth and food efficiency in bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 42, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, J, Leso, L, Umstatter, C, Niederhauser, J, Kennedy, E, Geoghegan, A, Shalloo, L, Schick, M and O’Brien, B 2018. Evaluation of the RumiWatchSystem for measuring grazing behaviour of cows. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 300, 138–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woods, A, Murphy, M, Crosson, P, Fagan, M and McWeeney, L 2015. Teagasc beef suckler demonstration farms - past, present and the next steps. Teagasc National Beef Conference, 21–27.Google Scholar
Wright, MM, Lewis, E, Garry, B, Galvin, N, Dunshea, FR, Hannah, MC, Auldist, MJ, Wales, WJ, Dillon, P and Kennedy, E 2019. Evaluation of the n-alkane technique for estimating herbage dry matter intake of dairy cows offered herbage harvested at two different stages of growth in summer and autumn. Animal Feed Science and Technology 247, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zom, RLG, André, G and van Vuuren, AM 2012. Development of a model for the prediction of feed intake by dairy cows 2. Evaluation of prediction accuracy. Livestock Science 143, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar