Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:57:09.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of different feeding strategies on lactation performance of Holstein and Normande dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

L. Delaby ,
P. Faverdin ,
G. Michel ,
C. Disenhaus  and
J. L. Peyraud
L. Delaby*
Affiliation:
INRA, AgroCampus Ouest, Dairy Production Research Unit, UMR1080, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
P. Faverdin
Affiliation:
INRA, AgroCampus Ouest, Dairy Production Research Unit, UMR1080, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
G. Michel
Affiliation:
INRA, Experimental farm, UE326, Le Pin-au-Haras, Borculo, 61310 Exmes, France
C. Disenhaus
Affiliation:
INRA, AgroCampus Ouest, Dairy Production Research Unit, UMR1080, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
J. L. Peyraud
Affiliation:
INRA, AgroCampus Ouest, Dairy Production Research Unit, UMR1080, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The dairy farming systems of Western Europe are based on a simple feeding system composed of grazed and preserved grass, maize silage and concentrates in variable proportions. There is, nevertheless, a great diversity of feeding strategies between dairy farms. Over 5 years, we studied the direct and delayed effects of four feeding strategies on the lactation and reproduction performances of Holstein and Normande dairy cows. The four feeding strategies (denoted Hh, Hl, Lh and Ll) correspond to two total mixed rations applied in winter from calving to turnout (maize silage with 30% concentrate or grass silage with 15% concentrate), which were subsequently crossed with two levels of concentrate supplementation at grazing to 210 days. Each year, 72 dairy cows managed in grouped winter calving were assigned to the four strategies. Finally, the results of 325 lactations and 295 inseminated cows were analysed. The four strategies resulted in considerable variation in nutrient intake and, in particular, in differences in concentrates consumed, with values of 1407, 1026, 773 and 392 kg dry matter per cow for strategies Hh, Lh, Hl and Ll, respectively. Total milk production (7567, 7015, 6720 and 6238 kg per cow for treatments Hh, Lh, Hl and Ll, respectively), milk fat content (39.0, 37.1, 40.3 and 38.5 g/kg, respectively), milk protein content (33.0, 31.8, 33.1 and 31.6 g/kg, respectively), and the character of the lactation and body condition curves were all highly sensitive to the strategies applied. While no significant interaction was detected on total lactation yield, the Holstein cows reacted more dramatically to each dietary change at each period, compared with the Normande cows. Winter feeding did not affect the production of milk at pasture whereas, at pasture, the milk from the cows of the H groups in winter was higher in milk fat and protein content. Reproduction performance was unaffected by feeding strategy. The Holstein cows, well fed and producing the most milk (Hh and Hb), had the lowest rate of success at first artificial inseminations (21.5%). The dual-purpose Normande cows had a pregnancy rate 10 points higher than Holstein cows. This comparison of strongly contrasting feeding strategies confirms the immediate reactivity of dairy cows (in terms of milk performance and body condition) to variations of nutritive intake throughout lactation, with a weak carryover effect from feeding levels early in lactation. In contrast, reproduction performance was less sensitive to variation in nutrient supply.

Keywords

dairy cowsfeeding strategylactationreproductionbreed
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 891 - 905
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Association Française de Normalisation 1997. Aliments des animaux. Détermination séquentielle des constituants pariétaux. Norme française NF V 8-122. AFNOR, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Barbat, A, Druet, T, Bonaiti, B, Guillaume, F, Colleau, JJ, Boichard, D 2005. Bilan phénotypique de la fertilité à l’insémination artificielle dans les trois principales races laitières françaises. Rencontres Autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 12, 137–140.Google Scholar
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Delahoy, JE, Cassidy, TW 2002. Milk response to concentrate supplementation of high producing dairy cows grazing at two pasture allowances. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1777–1792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Veerkamp, RF, 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
Berry, DP, Roche, JR, Coffey, MP 2008. Body condition score and fertility – more than just a feeling. In Proceedings of Fertility in Dairy Cows – bridging the gaps. Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar
Broster, WH, Broster, VJ 1984. Long term effects of plane of nutrition on the performance of the dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research 51, 149–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunschwig, P, Véron, J, Perrot, C, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Seegers, H 2001. Etude technique et économique de systèmes laitiers herbagers en Pays de Loire. Rencontres Autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 8, 237–244.Google Scholar
Coulon, JB, D’Hour, P, Garel, JP, Petit, M 1996. Long-term effect of level and pattern of winter concentrate allocation in dairy cows. Annales de Zootechnie 45, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaby, L, Peyraud, JL 2003. The effect of two contrasting grazing managements and level of concentrate supplementation on the performance of grazing dairy cows. Animal Research 52, 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaby, L, Peyraud, JL, Delagarde, R 2001a. Effect of the level of concentrate supplementation, herbage allowance and milk yield at turn-out on the performance of dairy cows in mid lactation at grazing. Animal Science 73, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaby, L, Peyraud, JL, Faverdin, P 2001b. Pâtur’IN: le pâturage des vaches laitières assisté par ordinateur. Fourrages 167, 385–398.Google Scholar
Dillon, P, Buckley, F, O’Connor, P, Hegarty, D, Rath, M 2003a. A comparison of different dairy cow breeds on a seasonal grass-based system of milk production. 1. Milk production, live weight, body condition score and DM intake. Livestock Production Science 83, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P, Snijders, S, Buckley, F, Harris, B, O’Connor, P, Mee, JF 2003b. A comparison of different dairy cow breeds on a seasonal grass-based system of milk production. 2. Reproduction and survival. Livestock Production Science 83, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P, Berry, DP, Evans, RD, Buckley, F, Horan, B 2006. Consequences of genetic selection for increased milk production in European seasonal pasture based systems of milk production. Livestock Science 99, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Delagarde, R 2007. L’ingestion d’aliments par les vaches laitières et sa prévision au cours de la lactation. INRA Productions Animales 20, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, C, Gordon, F, Patterson, D, Murphy, J, Anderson, D 2003. A comparison of fourth grassland-based systems of milk production for winter calving high genetic merit dairy cows. AgriSearch, Dungannon, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Dale, AJ, Mayne, CS, Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, KJ 2008. Comparison of fertility and health characteristics of Holstein-Friesian, Norwegian Red cows over a 8-year period. Poster Presentation at the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association, 12–13 March 2008, Tullamore, Ireland.Google Scholar
Friggens, NC, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I, Oldham, JD, Lewis, M 1998. Feed intake relative to stage of lactation for dairy cows consuming total mixed diets with a high and low ratio of concentrate to forage. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2228–2239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC, Sinclair, KD, Webb, R 2008. Integration of physiological mechanisms that influence fertility in dairy cows. Animal 2, 1144–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grummer, RR 2007. Strategies to improve fertility of high yielding dairy farms: management of the dry period. Theriogenology 68 (suppl. 1), S281–S288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoden, A, Peyraud, JL, Muller, A, Delaby, L, Faverdin, P 1991. Simplified rotational grazing management of dairy cows: effects of rates of stocking and concentrate. Journal of Agricultural Science 116, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B, Mee, JF, Rath, M, O’Connor, P, Dillon, P 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feeding system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science 79, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F, Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based systems on milk yield, body weight and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INRA 1989. Ruminants Nutrition. Recommended allowances & feed tables. INRA and John Libbey Eurotext, Paris and London, France and UK.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Stakelum, G, Rath, M 2003a. Effect of genetic merit and concentrate supplementation on grass intake and milk production with Holstein Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 610–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, O’Sullivan, K, Buckley, F, Rath, M 2003b. The effect of genetic merit for milk production and concentrate feeding level on the reproductive performance of Holstein-Friesian cows in a grass-based system. Animal Science 76, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, E, O’Donovan, M, O’Mara, FP, Murphy, JP, Delaby, L 2007. The effect of early-lactation feeding strategy on the lactation performance of spring-calving dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3060–3070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolver, ES, Roche, JR, de Veth, MJ, Thorne, PL, Napper, AR 2002. Total mixed rations versus pasture diets: Evidence for a genotype × diet interaction in dairy cow performance. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62, 246–251.Google Scholar
Le Gall, A, Grasset, M, Hubert, F 1997. La prairie dans les régions de l’Arc atlantique. I Place dans les systèmes fourragers et enjeux. Fourrages 152, 445–459.Google Scholar
Mayne, CS, Gordon, FJ 1995. Implications of genotype × nutrition interactions for efficiency of milk production. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. TLJ Lawrence, FJ Gordon and A Carson), pp. 67–77. Occasional publication no. 19. British Society of Animal Science, Midlothian, UK.Google Scholar
Mackey, DR, Gordon, AW, McCoy, MA, Verner, M, Mayne, CS 2007. Associations between genetic merit for milk production and animal parameters and the fertility performance of dairy cows. Animal 1, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, S, Horan, B, Dillon, P, O’Connor, P, Rath, M, Shalloo, L 2007. Economic comparison of divergent strains of Holstein-Friesian cows in various pasture-based production systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1493–1505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, NI, Friggens, NC, Larsen, T, Andersen, JB, Nielsen, MO, Ingvartsen, KL 2007. Effect of changes in diet energy density on feed intake, milk yield and metabolic parameters in dairy cows in early lactation. Animal 1, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Coffey, MP, Simm, G 2001. The relationship between body condition score and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1508–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rémond, B, Pomiès, D 2005. Once-daily milking of dairy cows: a review of recent French experiments. Animal Research 54, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JF 2006. The effect of nutritional management of the dairy cow on reproductive efficiency. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, JR 2007. Milk production responses to pre-and post-calving dry matter intake in grazing cows. Livestock Science 110, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JR, Berry, DP, Kolver, ES 2006. Holstein-Friesian strain and feed effects on milk production, body weight and body condition score profiles in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3532–3543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, JR, MacDonald, KA, Burke, CR, Lee, JM, Berry, DP 2007. Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 376–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, RF, Simm, G, Oldham, JD 1995. Genotype by environment interactions: experience from Langhill. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. TLJ Lawrence, FJ Gordon and A Carson), pp. 59–66. Occasional publication no. 19. British Society of Animal Science, Midlothian, UK.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Beerda, B, van der Lende, T 2003. Effects of genetic selection for milk yield on energy balance, levels of hormones, and metabolites in lactating cattle, and possible links to reduced fertility. Livestock Production Science 83, 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Mayne, CS, Keady, TWJ, Agnew, RE 2006. Effects of dairy cows genotype with two planes of nutrition on energy partitioning between milk and body tissue. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1031–1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed