Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:29:31.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Associations among body energy status, feeding duration and activity with respect to diet energy and protein content in housed dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2022

Liveness Jessica Banda ,
Mizeck Gift Gibson Chagunda ,
Cheryl Joy Ashworth  and
David John Roberts
Liveness Jessica Banda*
Affiliation:
SRUC Research King's Buildings, Scotland's Rural College, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK The Roslin Institute and R (D) SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Penicuik EH25 9RG, UK Animal Science Department, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
Mizeck Gift Gibson Chagunda
Affiliation:
SRUC Research King's Buildings, Scotland's Rural College, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK Animal Breeding & Husbandry in the Tropics & Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
Cheryl Joy Ashworth
Affiliation:
The Roslin Institute and R (D) SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Penicuik EH25 9RG, UK
David John Roberts
Affiliation:
SRUC Research King's Buildings, Scotland's Rural College, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Liveness Jessica Banda, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study in this research paper was undertaken with a hypothesis that accelerometer data can be used to improve monitoring of energy balance in dairy cows. Animals of high (select, S) and average (control, C) genetic-merit lines were allocated to two feeding systems, by-product (BP) and homegrown (HG). This culminated in four production systems referred to as BPS, BPC, HGS and HGC. Cows between their first and fourth lactations were included and a total of 8602 records were used. The target crude protein (CP) and metabolisable energy (ME) content in the BP diet was 185 g/kg DM and 12.3 MJ/kg DM while it was 180 g/kg DM, and 11.5 MJ/kg DM for the HG diet, respectively. Milk yield, body energy content (BEC) and animal activity were monitored while the animals were all housed for winter. Results showed that cows on homegrown feeds were significantly (P < 0.05) more active than cows on by-product feeds as indicated by higher motion index and number of steps per day. Feeding duration was not significantly different (P > 0.05) between cows under by-product feeding system irrespective of the energy balance of the cows. However, there were significant differences for cows under homegrown feeding system. Cows in negative energy balance had a longer feeding duration per day than cows in positive energy balance. Milk yield was negatively correlated (P < 0.05) to motion index and number of steps per day but not to lying time and feeding duration. The results showed differences in cow activity were related to diet content and body energy status. This is useful in precision farming where feeds are provided according to specific animal behaviour and feed requirements.

Keywords

Energy balancefeeding durationgenetic meritmotion indexproduction system
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 89 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 128 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

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

Aguilar-Pérez C, Ku-Vera J, Centurión-Castro F and Garnsworthy PC (2009) Energy balance, milk production and reproduction in grazing crossbred cows in the tropics with and without cereal supplementation. Livestock Science 122, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banos, G, Coffey, MP, Wall, E and Brotherstone, S (2006) Genetic relationship between first lactation body energy and later life udder health in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2222–2232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrientos, AK, Weary, DM, Galo, E and von Keyserlingk, MAG (2011) Lameness, leg injuries and lying times on 122 North American freestall farms. Journal of Dairy Science 94(suppl. 1), 414.Google Scholar
Blake, RW and Custodio, AA (1984) Feed efficiency: a composite trait of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 2075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S (1945) Bioenergetics and growth, with special reference to the efficiency complex in domestic animals. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.Google Scholar
Chagas, LM, Bass, JJ, Blache, D, Burke, CR, Kay, JK, Lindsay, DR, Lucy, MC, Martin, GB, Meier, S, Rhodes, FM, Roche, JR, Thatcher, WW and Webb, R (2007) New perspectives on the roles of nutrition and metabolic priorities in the subfertility of high-producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4022–4032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagunda, MGG, Ross, D and Roberts, DJ (2009) On the use of a laser methane detector in dairy cows. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 68, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firk, R, Stamer, E, Junge, W and Krieter, J (2002) Automation of oestrus detection in dairy cows: A review. Livestock Production Science 75, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Disenhaus, C and Petit, HV (2010) Nutritional sub-fertility in the dairy cow: towards improved reproductive management through a better biological understanding. Animal 4, 1197–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heublein, C, Dohme-Meier, F, Südekum, K-H, Bruckmaier, RM, Thanner, S and Schori, F (2017) Impact of cow strain and concentrate supplementation on grazing behaviour milk yield and metabolic state of dairy cows in an organic pasture-based feeding system. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 11, 1163–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F and Rath, M (2005) The interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield body weight and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, JLMR, Vanholder, T, van Knegsel, ATM, Garcia-Ispierto, I and Bols, PEJ (2008) Nutrient prioritization in dairy cows early postpartum: mismatch between metabolism and fertility? Reproduction in Domestic Animals 43 (suppl. 2), 96–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovendahl, P and Chagunda, MGG (2010) On the use of physical activity monitoring for estrus detection in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulvaney, P (1977) Dairy cow condition scoring. Handout No 4468 National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Nielsen, U, Pedersen, OM and Toivonen, M (2003) Time dependent effects as source of bias is estimating breeding values for longevity and fertility traits. Interbull Bulletin 30, 29–34.Google Scholar
NRC (2001) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
O'Callaghan, KA, Cripps, PJ, Downham, DY and Murray, RD (2003) Subjective and objective assessment of pain and discomfort due to lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Welfare 12, 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, MA, Olmos, G, Boyle, LA and Mee, JF (2010) Estrus detection and estrus characteristics in housed and pastured Holstein-Friesian cows. Theriogenology 74, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, J, Kenny, DA, McNamara, S, Mee, JF, O'Mara, FP, Diskin, MG and Murphy, JJ (2007) Relationships among milk production, energy balance, plasma analytes and reproduction in Holstein-Friesian cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 649–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollott, GE and Coffey, MP (2008) The effect of genetic merit and production system on dairy cow fertility measured using progesterone profiles and on-farm recording. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3649–3660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Coffey, MP and Simm, G (2001) The relationship between body condition score and reproductive performance. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1508–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Nielsen, BL, Veerkamp, RF and Simm, G (1999) Genotype and feeding system effects and interactions for health and fertility traits in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 57, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, DJ and March, M (2013) Feeding systems for dairy cows: Homegrown vs. by-product feeds. 45th University of Nottingham Feed Conference 25–26 June 2013 Nottingham United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Roche, JR, Friggens, NC, Kay, JK, Fisher, MW, Stafford, KJ and Berry, DP (2009) Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5769–5801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, SA, Chagunda, MGG, Topp, CFE and Ennos, R (2014) Effect of cattle genotype and feeding regime on greenhouse gas emissions intensity in high producing dairy cows. Livestock Science 170, 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjaunja, LO, Baevre, L, Junkkarinen, L, Pedersen, J and Setala, J (1990) A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In 27th session of the International Commission for Breeding and Productivity of Milk Animals, Paris.Google Scholar
Thorup, V, Munksgaard, L, Robert, P, Erhard, H, Thomsen, P and Friggens, N (2015) Lameness detection via leg-mounted accelerometers on dairy cows on four commercial farms. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 9, 1704–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, C, Hametner, C, Tuchscherer, A, Losand, B, Kanitz, E, Otten, W, Singh, SP, Bruckmaier, RM, Becker, F, Kanitz, W and Hammon, HM (2013) Variation in fat mobilization during early lactation differently affects feed intake body condition and lipid and glucose metabolism in high-yielding dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windig, JJ, Beerda, B and Veerkamp, RF (2008) Relationship between milk progesterone profiles and genetic merit for milk production milking frequency and feeding regimen in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2874–2884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Banda et al. supplementary material

Banda et al. supplementary material

Download Banda et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 102.7 KB