Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T22:15:08.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance and nursing behaviour of beef cows with different types of calf management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. Alvarez-Rodriguez ,
J. Palacio ,
I. Casasús ,
R. Revilla  and
A. Sanz
J. Alvarez-Rodriguez*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón, Avenida Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
J. Palacio
Affiliation:
Departamento de Patología Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Zaragoza, C/Miguel Servet, 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
I. Casasús
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón, Avenida Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
R. Revilla
Affiliation:
Centro de Transferencia Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón, Carretera Movera s/n, 50194 Zaragoza, Spain
A. Sanz
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria, Gobierno de Aragón, Avenida Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
*
E-mail: jalvarezr@aragon.es
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of calf management during lactation on dam performance and nursing behaviour. Thirty-six multiparous beef cows (aged 7.5 ± 0.52 years) of Parda de Montaña breed (mean live-weight (LW) at calving 566 ± 9.3 kg) with a moderate body condition (mean 2.6 ± 0.02 on a 1 to 5 scale), were assigned to three nursing frequencies from the day after parturition: Once-daily restricted nursing during a 30 min period at 0800 h (RESTR1), twice-daily restricted nursing during two 30 min periods at 0800 and 1530 h (RESTR2) and ad libitum nursing (ADLIB). Cows were fed throughout the experiment 80 MJ/day of metabolizable energy. Cow–calf behaviour recordings were performed on days 30 and 66 of lactation in each treatment. Blood samples were collected fortnightly to analyse non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) by an enzymatic colorimetric method, and twice weekly to determine progesterone concentrations by radioimmunoassay. Cow LW losses (P < 0.05), fat-corrected milk yield (P < 0.05) and calf average daily gain (P < 0.01) during lactation were higher in ADLIB. Nursing frequency affected the mean serum concentrations of NEFA, being lower in RESTR1 (0.18 mmol/l; P < 0.05) than in RESTR2 and ADLIB cows (0.29 and 0.25 mmol/l, respectively). The highest occurrence of nursing bouts was observed in ADLIB, leading to greater nursing duration per day (not statistically compared) in this treatment (58.8 ± 5.84 min) than in their restricted nursing counterparts (22.2 ± 1.42 and 34.3 ± 1.16 min, in RESTR1 and RESTR2, respectively). The nursing system did not affect the proportion of cows cycling within 3 months post partum (58%, 46% and 55% in RESTR1, RESTR2 and ADLIB, respectively; P > 0.05). The majority of cows in all treatments showed a short oestrus cycle after first ovulation (75%, 100% and 83%; P > 0.05). In conclusion, the post-partum luteal function in cows managed under continuous access to calves was similar to restricted nursing frequencies, despite the greater suckling intensity of the formers. Restricting calf presence does not enhance the resumption of ovarian activity when suckler cows are managed in moderate nutritional conditions.

Keywords

nursinglactationNEFAsuckling frequencyanoestrus
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 6 , June 2009 , pp. 871 - 878
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

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, London, 351pp.Google Scholar
Álvarez, J, Palacio, J, Casasús, I, Revilla, R, Sanz, A 2006. Behaviour of Parda de Montaña cow–calf pairs in restricted suckling systems. In Book of abstracts no. 12, 57th EAAP Annual Meeting, Antalya, Turkey, 330.Google Scholar
Bell, AW 1995. Regulation of organic nutrient metabolism during transition from late pregnancy to early lactation. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2804–2819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, R, Robert, BS, Lewis, AW, Neuendorff, DA, Randel, RD 1994. Effects of post-partum nutrition and once-daily suckling on reproductive efficiency and preweaning calf performance in fall-calving Brahman (Bos indicus) cows. Journal of Animal Science 72, 984–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasús, I, Blanco, M, Sanz, A, Bernués, A, Revilla, R 2006. Considerations on the impact of early weaning of fall-born beef calves on system efficiency and potential use of pastures. In Quality production and quality of the environment in the mountain pastures of an enlarged Europe (ed. K Biala, J Nösberger, G Parente and A Peeters), pp. 285–294. ERSA-Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo Rurale, Gorizia, Italy.Google Scholar
Casasús, I, Bernués, A, Sanz, A, Villalba, D, Riedel, JL, Revilla, R 2007. Vegetation dynamics in Mediterranean forest pastures as affected by beef cattle grazing. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 121, 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulon, JB, Rémond, B 1991. Variations in milk output and milk protein content in response to the level of energy supply to the dairy cow: a review. Livestock Production Science 29, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Hour, P, Revilla, R, Wright, IA 1998. Adaptations possibles de la conduite du tropeau allaitant aux situations extensives. INRA Productions Animales 11, 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, SM, Wiktorsson, H, Forsberg, M 1999. Effects of calf management and level of food supplementation on milk yield and calf growth of Zebu and crossbred cattle in the semi-arid tropics. Livestock Production Science 59, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, SM, Redbo, I, Wiktorsson, H 2000. Effect of age of calf on suckling behaviour and other behavioural activities of Zebu and crossbred calves during restricted suckling periods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Das, SM, Redbo, I, Wiktorsson, H 2001. Behaviour of zebu and crossbred cows in restricted suckling groups. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, ML, Imakawa, K, Clutter, AC, Wolfe, PL, Zalesky, DD, Nielsen, MK, Kinder, JE 1987. Suckling behavior of calves with dams varying in milk-production. Journal of Animal Science 65, 1207–1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Passillé, AM 2001. Sucking motivation and related problems in calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diskin, MG, Grealy, M, Sreenan, JM 1992. Effect of body condition score at calving and suckling frequency on post-partum interval in suckler cows. Animal Production 54, 466.Google Scholar
Easdon, MP, Chesworth, JM, Aboul-Ela, MBE, Henderson, GD 1985. The effect of under nutrition of beef cows on blood hormone and metabolite concentrations post-partum. Reproduction Nutrition Development 25, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union Directive No. 86/609/CEE 1986. Council Directive of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities Serie L358, 1–32.Google Scholar
Grimard, B, Humblot, P, Ponter, AA, Mialot, JP, Sauvant, D, Thibier, M 1995. Influence of post-partum energy restriction on energy status, plasma LH and oestradiol secretion and follicular development in suckled beef cows. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 104, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, GC, Miller, BL, Lynch, JM, Thompson, KE, Heldt, JS, Loest, CA, Grieger, DM, Stevenson, JS 1999. Twice daily suckling but not milking with calf presence prolongs post-partum anovulation. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2207–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaVoie, V, Han, DK, Foster, DB, Moody, EL 1981. Suckling effect on estrus and blood plasma progesterone in post-partum beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 52, 802–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Du, YLP, McDonald, AJ, Peart, JN 1979. Comparison of two techniques for estimating the milk production of suckler cows. Livestock Production Science 6, 277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandrowski, NM, Hurnik, JF 1983. Suckling and cross-suckling behaviour in beef cattle in confinement. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 849–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA, Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring suckler cows, Revised edition. East of Scotland College of Agriculture. Bulletin no. 6, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Marongiu, ML, Molle, G, San Juan, L, Bomboi, G, Ligios, C, Sanna, A, Casu, S, Diskin, MG 2002. Effects of feeding level before and after calving, and restricted suckling frequency on post-partum reproductive and productive performance of Sarda and Charolais × Sarda beef cows. Livestock Production Science 77, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odde, KG, Kiracofe, GH, Schalles, RR 1985. Suckling behaviour in range beef calves. Journal of Animal Science 61, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paranhos da Costa, MJR, Albuquerque, LG, Eler, JP, Silva, JAV 2006. Suckling behaviour of Nelore, Gir and Caracu calves and their crosses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, M, Micol, D 1981. Evaluation of energy requirements of beef cows during early lactation. Livestock Production Science 8, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponter, AA, Douar, C, Mialot, JP, Benoit-Valiergue, H, Grimard, B 2000. Effect of underfeeding post-partum Charolais beef cows on composition of plasma non-esterified fatty acids. Animal Science 71, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randel, RD 1981. Effect of once-daily suckling on post-partum interval and cow–calf performance of first calf Brahman × Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 53, 755–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, JJ, Gaskins, CT 1981. Effect of once-a-day suckling on rebreeding efficiency of beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 53, 889–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, A 2000. Dinámica follicular en vacas nodrizas sometidas a condiciones nutricionales y de manejo del ternero diferentes. Factores de explotación asociados a la duración del anestro post-parto. PhD, University of Zaragoza, Spain, 224pp.Google Scholar
Sanz, A, Casasús, I, Villalba, D, Revilla, R 2003. Effects of suckling frequency and breed on productive performance, follicular dynamics and post-partum interval in beef cows. Animal Reproduction Science 79, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanz, A, Bernués, A, Villalba, D, Casasús, I, Revilla, R 2004a. Influence of management and nutrition on post-partum interval in Brown Swiss and Pirenaica cows. Livestock Production Science 86, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, A, Casasús, I, Villalba, D, Revilla, R 2004b. Effects of body condition at calving, post-partum nutrition and suckling restriction from day 45 post partum on follicular dynamics in Brown Swiss cows. Reproduction Abstract Series 31, 24.Google Scholar
Schillo, KK, Hall, JB, Hileman, SM 1992. Effects of nutrition and season on the onset of puberty in the beef heifer. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3994–4005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, RE, Bellows, RA, Staigmiller, RB, Berardinelli, JG, Custer, EE 1990. Physiological mechanisms controlling anestrus and infertility in post-partum beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68, 799–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, KD, Molle, G, Revilla, R, Roche, JF, Quintans, G, Marongiu, L, Sanz, A, Mackey, DR, Diskin, MG 2002. Ovulation of the first dominant follicle arising after day 21 post partum in suckling beef cows. Animal Science 75, 486–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somerville, SH, Lowman, BG 1979. Observations on the suckling behaviour of beef cows suckling Charolais cross calves. Applied Animal Ethology 5, 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, JS, Lamb, GC, Hoffmann, DP, Minton, JE 1997. Interrelationships of lactation and post-partum anovulation in suckled and milked cows. Livestock Production Science 50, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxel, TR, Opsomer, MJ, Kesler, DJ 1984. The effect of days post partum, indomethacin and oxytocin on prostaglandin metabolite concentrations in post-partum suckled beef cows. Theriogenology 22, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, PL, Holness, DH, McCabe, CT, Lishman, AW 1986. Fertility in the Afrikander cow. 3. Once a day suckling and its effect on the pattern of resumption of ovarian activity and conception rate in early lactation. Animal Reproduction Science 12, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, LA, Whittier, JC, Azzam, SM, Deutscher, GH, Kinder, JE 1996. Relationship between circulating progesterone and conception at the first post-partum estrus in young primiparous beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 74, 616–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wettemann, RP, Lents, CA, Ciccioli, NH, White, FJ, Rubio, I 2003. Nutritional- and suckling-mediated anovulation in beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 81 (E suppl. 2), E48–E59.Google Scholar
Whisnant, CS, Kiser, TE, Thompson, FN, Hall, JB 1985. Effect of nutrition on the LH response to calf removal and GnRH. Theriogenology 24, 565–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, GL, Osborn, RG, Kirsch, JD, Tilton, JE 1984. Suckling, milking and calf presence as regulators of tonic gonadotropin release and post-partum interval. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, p. 410.Google Scholar
Williams, GL, McVey, WR, Hunter, JF 1993. Mammary somatosensory pathways are not required for suckling-mediated inhibition of luteinizing hormone secretion and delay of ovulation in cows. Biology of Reproduction 49, 1328–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, GL, Gazal, OS, Vega, GAG, Stanko, RL 1996. Mechanisms regulating suckling-mediated anovulation in the cow. Animal Reproduction Science 42, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollers, WGJ, Garverick, HA, Youngquist, RS, Ottobre, JS, Silcox, RW, Copelin, JP, Smith, MF 1991. In vitro secretion of prostaglandins from endometrium of post-partum beef cows expected to have a short or normal luteal phases. Biology of Reproduction 44, 522–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed