Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:26:37.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importance of dam BW change and calf birth weight in double-muscled Belgian Blue cattle and its relationship with parity and calving interval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2014

L. O. Fiems  and
B. Ampe
L. O. Fiems*
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) – Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
B. Ampe
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) – Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
*
†E-mail: leo.fiems@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

Factors affecting calving interval (CI) in double-muscled Belgian Blue (DMBB) beef cows were investigated with regard to the BW yield (BWY) of the cow–calf pair, using 834 CI records from 386 females with parities 1 to 6. The effect of parity and CI on BWY was also studied. Cow–calf pair BWY was defined as calf birth weight plus dam BWY per CI. CI (mean±s.e.: 404±1.9 days) was affected by parity, calving season, suckling and calf birth weight/dam weight. Primiparous cows had a shorter CI than cows with three or more calvings (P<0.05), with an intermediate CI for second-calf cows. Spring calvings resulted in a shorter CI than summer and autumn calvings, with intermediate values for winter calvings. Suckling dams had longer CIs than non-suckling dams. There were interactions (P<0.05) between calving season and suckling, and between calving season and mating system. Shortest CIs were observed for spring calvings in case of non-suckling and for summer calvings in case of suckling. Longest CIs were observed for autumn calvings in case of natural service (NS) and for winter calvings in case of artificial insemination (AI). Calf birth weight/dam weight of 6% to 10% resulted in shorter CI than a ratio of <6% (P<0.05). Body condition and mating system (NS v. AI) did not affect CI. Daily cow–calf pair BWY was affected by parity (P<0.001) and CI (P=0.013), with a tendency for an interaction (P=0.094). Daily cow–calf pair BWY did not differ for CIs of <12 to 16 months in primiparous cows and was lowest for a CI of 13 to 15 months in second-calf cows, whereas the effect of CI was more variable in older cows. Dam contribution to cow–calf pair BWY was larger than calf birth weight in first- and second-calf cows, and increased with increasing CI. Dam contribution to cow–calf pair BWY was smaller than calf birth weight in older cows, varying from 0.2 to 1.0 depending on CI. A short CI is advised for DMBB cows because of a larger BWY and more efficient nutrient utilisation.

Keywords

BW yieldcalving intervalcowdouble musclingparity
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 94 - 103
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Agabriel, J, Grenet, N and Petit, M 1992. Etat corporel et intervalle entre vêlages chez la vache allaitante. Bilan de deux années d’enquêtes en exploitation. INRA Productions Animales 5, 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agabriel, J, Giraud, JM, Petit, M, Barboiron, C, Coulaud, G and Decuq, F 1986. Determination et utilisation de la note d’etat d’engraissement en elevage allaitant. Bulletin Technique, CRZV Theix, INRA 66, 43–50.Google Scholar
Andersen, H and Plum, M 1965. Gestation length and birth weight in cattle and buffaloes: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1224–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barth, AD and Waldner, CL 2002. Factors affecting breeding soundness classification of beef bulls examined at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 43, 274–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Blanc, F and Agabriel, J 2008. Modelling the reproductive efficiency in a beef cow herd: effect of calving date, bull exposure and body condition at calving on the calving–conception interval and calving distribution. The Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammack, KM, Thomas, MG and Enns, RM 2009. Reproductive traits and their heritabilities in beef cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 25, 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal Veevoederbureau (CVB) 1998. Voedernormen landbouwhuisdieren en voederwaarde veevoeders. Verkorte tabel 1998. CVB-reeks nr. 24. Centraal Veevoederbureau, Lelystad, The Netherlands. 116pp.Google Scholar
Deutscher, GH, Stotts, JA and Nielsen, MK 1991. Effects of breeding season length and calving season on range beef cow productivity. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3453–3460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, MJ and Berry, DP 2006. Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 45, 25–38.Google Scholar
Ducrot, C, Grohn, YT, Humblot, P, Bugnard, F, Sulpice, P and Gilbert, RO 1994. Postpartum anestrus in French beef cattle: an epidemiological study. Theriogenology 42, 753–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, S, Näsholm, A, Johansson, K and Philipsson, J 2004. Genetic parameters for calving difficulty, stillbirth, and birth weight for Hereford and Charolais at first and later parities. Journal of Animal Science 82, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiems, LO 2012. Double muscling in cattle: genes, husbandry, carcasses and meat. Animals 2, 472–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiems, LO and De Brabander, DL 2009. Optimum growth rate of Belgian Blue double-muscled heifers. South African Journal of Animal Science 39 (suppl.), 6–10.Google Scholar
Fiems, LO, De Campeneere, S, van Caelenbergh, W and Boucqué, CV 2001. Relationship between dam and calf characteristics with regard to dystocia in Belgian Blue double-muscled cows. Animal Science 72, 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiems, LO, van Caelenbergh, W, De Campeneere, S and De Brabander, DL 2005a. The influence of dietary energy level in double-muscled Belgian Blue cows during the indoor period on calf birth weight and development. Archives Animal Breeding 48 (suppl.), 41–47.Google Scholar
Fiems, LO, van Caelenbergh, W, Vanacker, JM, De Campeneere, S and Seynaeve, M 2005b. Prediction of empty body composition of double-muscled beef cows. Livestock Production Science 92, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiems, LO, van Caelenberg, W, De Campeneere, S and De Brabander, DL 2006. Body condition scoring in relation to changes in body weight and performance in Belgian Blue double-muscled beef cows. Animal Research 55, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiems, LO, De Campeneere, S, van Caelenbergh, W and De Brabander, DL 2009. Effect of indoor energy restriction level and management on beef production in Belgian Blue double-muscled cow-calf pairs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 93, 678–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiems, LO, De Campeneere, S, van Caelenbergh, W, De Boever, JL and Vanacker, JM 2003. Carcass and meat quality in double-muscled Belgian Blue bulls and cows. Meat Science 63, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, JM 1987. Voluntary food intake and reproduction. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 46, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, EL, Sprott, LR, Sanders, JO, Dahm, PF, Crouch, JR and Turner, JW 1999. Sire marbling score expected progeny difference and weaning weight maternal expected progeny difference associations with age at first calving and calving interval in Angus beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1322–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guedon, L, Saumande, J and Desbals, B 1999. Relationships between calf birth weight, prepartum concentrations of plasma energy metabolites and resumption of ovulation postpartum in Limousine suckled beef cows. Theriogenology 52, 779–789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez, JP, Goyache, F, Fernández, I, Alvarez, I and Royo, LJ 2007. Genetic relationships among calving ease, calving interval, birth weight, and weaning weight in the Asturiana de los Valles beef cattle breed. Journal of Animal Science 85, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, PJ and Hauser, ER 1983. Genotype×environmental interactions on reproductive traits of bovine females. III. Seasonal variation in postpartum reproduction as influenced by genotype, suckling and dietary regimen. Journal of Animal Science 56, 1362–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanzen, C, Laurent, Y and Ward, WR 1994. Comparison of reproductive performance in Belgian dairy and beef cattle. Theriogenology 41, 1099–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johanson, JM and Berger, PJ 2003. Birth weight as a predictor of calving ease and perinatal mortality in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3745–3755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joosten, L, van Eldik, P, Elving, L and van Der Mey, GJW 1987. Factors related to the etiology of retained placenta in dairy cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 14, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunkle, WE, Sand, RS and Rae, DO 1994. Effect of body condition on productivity in beef cattle. In Factors affecting calf crop (ed. MJ Fields and RS Sand), pp. 167–178. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
Ménissier, F 1982. General survey of the effect of double muscling on cattle performance. In Muscle hypertrophy of genetic origin and its use to improve beef production (ed. JWB King and F Ménissier), pp. 23–53. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadarajah, K, Marlowe, TJ and Notter, DR 1984. Growth patterns of Angus, Charolais, Charolais×Angus and Holstein×Angus cows from birth to maturity. Journal of Animal Science 59, 957–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Osoro, K and Wright, IA 1992. The effect of body condition, live weight, breed, age, calf performance, and calving date on reproductive performance of spring-calving beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1661–1666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdok, HB, Hulshof, RBA, Veneman, JB, Newbold, JR and van Zijderveld, SM 2011. Nutritional management to reduce the carbon footprint of dairy and beef products. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia 18, 167–174.Google Scholar
Phocas, F and Laloë, D 2004. Genetic parameters for birth and weaning traits in French specialized beef cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science 89, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilarczyk, R and Wójcik, J 2008. Comparison of body weight and reproduction performance in cows of various beef breeds managed under equal conditions in West Pomerania. Archives Animal Breeding 51, 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Přibyl, J, Misztal, I, Přibylová, J and Šeba, K 2003. Multiple-breed, multiple-traits evaluation of beef cattle in the Czech Republic. Czech Journal of Animal Science 48, 519–532.Google Scholar
Rae, DO, Kunkle, WE, Chenoweth, PJ, Sand, RS and Tran, T 1993. Relationship of parity and body condition score to pregnancy rates in Florida beef cattle. Theriogenology 39, 1143–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renquist, BJ, Oltjen, JW, Sainz, RD and Calvert, CC 2006. Relationship between body condition score and production of multiparous beef cows. Livestock Science 104, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T, Amer, PR, Thompson, R and Simm, G 2005. Genetic parameters for a maternal breeding goal in beef production. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2319–2329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roux, M, Teissier, JH, Bonnemaire, J and Dumont, R 1987. Beef production from dairy herds. I. The effects of genotype (Friesian and Charolais×Friesian) and two feeding levels in the rearing period on growth and carcass quality. Livestock Production Science 16, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, RE and Adams, DC 1988. Nutritional and hormonal interrelationships in beef cattle reproduction. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JW, Ely, LO, Gilson, WD and Graves, WM 2004. Effects of artificial insemination vs natural service breeding on production and reproduction parameters in dairy herds. The Professional Animal Scientist 20, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StatSoft 2009. Statistica, version 9. StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, van Straalen, WM, Subnel, APJ, Meijer, RGM, Steg, A, Wever, CJG and Blok, MC 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB-system. Livestock Production Science 40, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Es, AJH 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. 1. The systems in use from May 1977 onwards in the Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeplassche, M and Bouters, R 1982. The impact of gynaecological and obstetrical problems resulting out of pregnancy and parturition. In Factors influencing fertility in the postpartum cow (ed. H Karg and E Schallenberger), pp. 30–44. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Werth, LA, Azzam, SM and Kinder, JE 1996. Calving intervals in beef cows at 2, 3, and 4 years of age when breeding is not restricted after calving. Journal of Animal Science 74, 593–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, GL 1990. Suckling as a regulator of postpartum rebreeding in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 68, 831–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed