Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T01:31:36.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between body condition scores and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat and m. longissimus dorsi in dairy cows differing in size and type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. Schwager-Suter ,
C. Stricker ,
D. Erdin  and
N. Künzi
R. Schwager-Suter
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH-Zentrum CLU, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
C. Stricker
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH-Zentrum CLU, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
D. Erdin
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH-Zentrum CLU, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
N. Künzi
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH-Zentrum CLU, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Get access

Abstract

In the present study body condition scores (BCS), ultrasound fat thickness and ultrasound m. longissimus dorsi thickness as well as body measurements and management factors were recorded repeatedly during lactation in 71 Holstein-Friesians, 71 Jerseys and 71 Holstein-Jersey F1-crosses (first to ninth lactation) on four feeding regimens. BCS were analysed with ultrasound measurements as explanatory variables by mixed models. A compound symmetry structure for the variance components was applied. The models were also tested for an autoregressive error structure [AR(1)]. Ultrasound fat thickness and ultrasound m. longissimus dorsi thickness explained most of the variability in BCS. Coefficients of determination were between 0•84 and 0•85. Management factors such as feeding group and stage of lactation (week of taking measurements) and the breed type ✕ lactation interaction were, although significant, not relevant for the fit. Holsteins tended to have lower scores than F1-crosses and Jerseys and younger cows tended to have higher scores than older cows. Despite small differences between breeds, Edmonson’s BCS proved to be consistent within each breed type; thus BCS can be applied to various dairy breeds.

Keywords

body conditionm. longissimus dorsisubcutaneousfatultrasound
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 465 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Bickel, H. and Landis, J. 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. III. Proposed application of the new system of energy evaluation in Switzerland. Livestock Production Science 5: 671—677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, E. M. and Reinsel, G. C. 1989. Models for longitudinal data with random effects and AR(1) errors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84: 452—459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domecq, J. J., Skidmore, A. L., Lloyd, J. W. and Kaneene, J. B. 1995. Validation of body condition scores with ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 2308—2313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonson, A. J., Lean, I. J., Weaver, L. D., Farver, T. and Webster, G. 1989. A body condition scoring chart of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 68—78.Google Scholar
Es, A. J. H. van. 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. I. The systems in use from May 1977 onwards in The Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5: 331—345.Google Scholar
Faulkner, D. B., Parrett, D. F., McKeith, F. K. and Berger, L. L. 1990. Prediction of fat cover and carcass composition from live and carcass measurements. Journal of Animal Science 68: 604—610.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. D., Galligan, D. T. and Thomsen, N. 1994. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 2695—2703.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. 1987. The effect of energy reserves at calving on performance of dairy cows. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 157—170. Butterworths, London.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
Littell, R. C., Henry, P. R. and Ammermann, C. B. 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1216—1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MathSoft. 1996. S-Plus, version 3•4 for Unix, supplement. Data Analysis Products Division, MathSoft Incorporation, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
Neilson, D. R., Whittemore, C. T., Lewis, M., Alliston, J. C., Roberts, D. J., Hodgson-Jones, L. S., Mills, J., Parkinson, H. and Prescott, J. H. D. 1983. Production characteristics of high-yielding dairy cows. Animal Production 36: 321—334.Google Scholar
Otto, K. L., Ferguson, J. D., Fox, D. G. and Sniffen, C. J. 1991. Relationship between body condition score and composition of the ninth to eleventh rib tissue in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 852—859.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Thompson, R. 1971. Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58: 545—554.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 1998. Version 3•0 of NLME: software for mixed-effects models. Available at: http://cm.bell-labs.com/stat/NLME or http://nlme.stat.wisc.edu. Google Scholar