Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:01:31.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dam factors on milk intake and performance of Belgian Blue suckling calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

L. O. Fiems ,
W. Van Caelenbergh ,
S. De Campeneere  and
D. L. De Brabander
L. O. Fiems*
Affiliation:
ILVO – Animal Sciences Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
W. Van Caelenbergh
Affiliation:
ILVO – Animal Sciences Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
S. De Campeneere
Affiliation:
ILVO – Animal Sciences Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
D. L. De Brabander
Affiliation:
ILVO – Animal Sciences Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
*
E-mail: leo.fiems@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

Milk intake data were collected at 4-week intervals from Belgian Blue double-muscled (BBDM) suckling calves up to 16 weeks after birth. Dams were fed at 100%, 90%, 80% or 70% of their energy requirements during a 140-day indoor period from the beginning of December to the end of April (restriction period). Afterwards, cows were turned out on pasture (re-alimentation period). Mean calving date was 3 June, but parturitions were spread over the year. A total of 521 individual milk intake (IMI) and 120 average daily milk intake (AMI, mean of IMI) records were collected. IMI amounted to 7.0 ± 2.2 kg/day and was not affected by energy level during the indoor period. It was highest in May and June. Calves born out of multiparous cows consumed more milk than those born out of primiparous cows (7.4 v. 6.2 kg per day; P = 0.001), while intake tended to be higher in female than in male calves (7.2 v. 6.8 kg per day; P = 0.044). Dam age at calving, parity, post partum weight and body condition were only weakly correlated with AMI (r ⩽ 0.4). AMI was correlated with pre-weaning live-weight gain (r = 0.807) and weaning weight (r = 0.783), with a slightly higher correlation for male than for female calves. Daily live-weight gain during the suckling period was increased by 79 g per extra kg daily milk intake on average, and by 86 and 74 g, respectively, for male and female calves. Calf solid feed intake was low, even when milk intake was low. In terms of net energy intake, milk was only substituted for solid feed by 29%. It can be concluded from the calf intake that milk production in BBDM cows is comparable with that of cows from other beef breeds, but its variation is considerable, complicating an accurate estimation.

Keywords

beef cowscalvesdouble-musclingmilk intakeperformance
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Adams, DC, Staigmiller, RB, Knapp, BW, Lamb, JB 1993. Native or seeded rangeland for cows with high or low milk production. Journal of Range Management 46, 474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agabriel, J, Giraud, JM, Petit, M 1986. Détermination et utilisation de la note d’état d’engraissement en élevage allaitant. Bulletin Technique du Centre de Recherche de Zootechniques et Vétérinaire de Theix INRA 66, 43–50.Google Scholar
Beal, WE, Notter, DR, Akers, RM 1990. Techniques for estimation of milk yield in beef cows and relationships of milk yield to calf weight gain and post partum reproduction. Journal of Animal Science 68, 937–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, MA, Brown, AH 2002. Relationship of milk yield and quality to preweaning gain of calves from Angus, Brahman and reciprocal-cross cows on different forage systems. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2522–2527.Google ScholarPubMed
Buskirk, DD, Faulkner, DB, Ireland, FA 1995. Increased postweaning gain of beef heifers enhances fertility and milk production. Journal of Animal Science 73, 937–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutter, AC, Nielsen, MK 1987. Effect of level of beef cow milk production on pre- and postweaning calf growth. Journal of Animal Science 64, 1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corah, LR, Dunn, TG, Kaltenbach, CC 1975. Influence of prepartum nutrition on the reproductive performance of beef females and performance of their progeny. Journal of Animal Science 41, 819–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, GE 2003. Photoperiod management of dairy cattle for performance and health. Advances in Dairy Technology 15, 347–353.Google Scholar
Daley, DR, McCuskey, A, Bailey, CM 1987. Composition and yield of milk from beef-type Bos taurus and Bos indicus × Bos Taurus dams. Journal of Animal Science 64, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Hour, P, Petit, M 1998. Extensification of suckler herd management: recent studies at INRATheix. In Effects of extensification on animal performance, carcass composition and product quality (ed. LO Fiems and S De Campeneere), pp. 299–310. Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Ireland.Google Scholar
Drennan MJ, Fallon RJ 1998 A comparison of Charolais and beef × Friesian suckler cows. Project Report ARMIS no. 3699, p. 22, Teagasc, Dunsany, Ireland.Google Scholar
Fiems, LO, Boucque, Ch V, De Campeneere, S 1997. Effects on calving interval and beef production in Belgian White-blue double muscled beef cows. In Book of abstracts, no. 3, 48th EAAP annual meeting (ed. JAM van Arendonk), p. 275. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Freetly, HC, Cundiff, LV 1998. Reproductive performance, calf growth and milk production of first-calf heifers sired by seven breeds and raised on different levels of nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1513–1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freking, BA, Marshall, DM 1992. Interrelationships of heifer milk production and other biological traits with production efficiency to weaning. Journal of Animal Science 70, 646–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grings, EE, Short, RE, Klement, KD, Geary, TW, MacNeil, MD, Haferkamp, MR, Heitschmidt, RK 2005. Calving system and weaning age effects on cow and preweaning calf performance in the Northern Great Plains. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2671–2683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grobet, L, Poncelet, D, Royo, LJ, Brouwers, B, Pirottin, D, Michaux, C, Ménissier, F, Zanotti, M, Dunner, S, Georges, M 1998. Molecular definition of an allelic series of mutations disrupting the myostatin function and causing double-muscling in cattle. Mammalian Genome 9, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanset, R 1982. Muscular hypertrophy as a racial characteristic: the case of the Belgian Blue breed. In Muscle hypertrophy of genetic origin and its use to improve beef production (ed. WB King and F Ménissier), pp. 437–449. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, TG, Ferrell, CL 1984. A note on lactation curves of crossbred cows. Animal Production 39, 479–482.Google Scholar
Le Neindre, P 1974. Production laitière de vaches allaitantes et liaison entre cette production et la croissance de leurs veaux. Bulletin Technique du Centre de Recherche de Zootechniques et Vétérinaires. de Theix INRA (Suppl.), 212–230.Google Scholar
Lewis, JM, Klopfenstein, TJ, Stock, RA, Nielsen, MK 1990. Evaluation of intensive v. extensive systems of beef production and the effect of level of beef cow milk production on postweaning performance. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2517–2524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, TT, Simms, DD, Schalles, RR, Zoellner, KO, Martin, LC, Fink, GM 1992. Relationship of milk production, milk expected progeny difference, and calf weaning weight in Angus and Simmental cow–calf pairs. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3304–3310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMorris, MR, Wilton, JW 1986. Breeding system, cow weight and milk yield effects on various biological variables in beef production. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1361–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melton, AA, Riggs, JK, Nelson, LA, Cartwright, TC 1967. Milk production, composition and calf gains of Angus, Charolais and Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 26, 804–809.CrossRefGoogle 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. WB King and F Ménissier), pp. 23–53. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, SP, Wilton, JW, Pfeiffer, WC 1999. Effects of milk yield on biological efficiency and profit of beef production from birth to slaughter. Journal of Animal Science 77, 344–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondragon, I, Wilton, JW, Allen, OB, Song, H 1983. Stage of lactation effects, repeatabilities and influences on weaning weights of yield and composition of milk in beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 751–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, WE 1962. Influence of dam’s milk production and other factors on 120- and 240-day weight of Hereford calves. Journal of Animal Science 21, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robison, OW, Yusuff, MKM, Dillard, EU 1978. Milk production in Hereford cows: I. Means and correlations. Journal of Animal Science 47, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, JJ, Robison, OW, Ahlschwede, WT, Legates, JE 1971. Milk yield and its influence on 205-day weight of beef calves. Journal of Animal Science 33, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shell, TM, Early, RJ, Carpenter, JR, Buckley, BA 1995. Prepartum nutrition and solar radiation in beef cattle: II. Residual effects on post partum milk yield, immunoglobulin, and calf growth. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1303–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences 2002. SPSS for Windows, release 11.5. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Vandeplassche, M, Bouters, R 1982. The impact of gynaecological and obstetrical problems resulting out of pregnancy and parturition. In Factors influencing fertility in the post partum cow (ed. H Karg and E Schallenberger), pp. 30–44. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants: I. The system in use from May 1977 onwards in the Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettemann, RP, Lents, CA, Ciccioli, NH, White, FJ, Rubio, I 2003. Nutritional- and suckling-mediated anovulation in beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 81 (Suppl. 2), E48–E59.Google Scholar
Williams, GL 1990. Suckling as a regulator of post partum rebreeding in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 68, 831–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed