Influence of cow body weight and condition score before delivery on calving course of hereford cows

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Influence of cow body weight and condition score before delivery on calving course of hereford cows

Henryk Grodzki

Abstract

The aim of the research was to determine the influence of Hereford cows body weight and condition score (BCS) before calving on calving course. The performance of 314 purebred Hereford cows kept at 3 farms in Poland constituted the material for investigations. Body condition score was estimated using 9 point scale according to Richards (24) directly before planned calving day. The following levels were used: 1 - bad (notes 1, 2, 3), 2 - suitable (notes 4, 5, 6, 7), 3 - more than enough (notes 8, 9). All the animals were weighted. The calving course was qualified to one of the following categories: N - easy, without any help, T - difficult, with farmer's help or mechanical means use. The ratio of different calving course of Hereford cows depending on their body weight and condition (BCS) just prior to calving was analysed. Correlation coefficient between calving course and Hereford cows BCS was low (r = -0.019), but statistically significant. The highest ratio of difficult calvings was noticed for cows, which body weight not exceeded 500 kg (20.7%). Together with cow body weight increase the ratio of difficult calvings decreased. BCS notes 4, 5, 6, 7 were proved as the optimal (majority of calvings were examined as “suitable”). All of calvings from cows with 1, 2, 3 notes had to be assisted.

Problem of beef cow body weight and its condition (BCS) just before delivery has a direct impact on calving quality. The basic factors influencing calving course such as: cow age and connected with it calving number, calf body weight at birth, calf sex, cow pelvis structure are well known and described [Berger 1994; Berger et al. 1992; Brzozowski et al. 1994; Brzozowski et al. 1998; Johnson and Berger 2003; McDermott et al. 1992; Meyer et al. 2000; Nix et al. 1998; Nogalski 2003]. There is not too much information on the influence of cow BCS just before calving on its course. Evaluation of beef cows' BCS in the different physiological periods, depending mainly on nutritional level and system of housing, as well as the influence of BCS on calving quality in purebred beef cow population should be the aim of investigations.

The goal of the study was to determine the influence of Hereford cows body weight and BCS before calving on calving quality.

Material and methods. 314 purebred Hereford cows at 3 farms, members of the Polish Association of Beef Cattle Breeders and Producers, were the material of investigations. Body condition score was estimated using 9 point scale according to Richards et al. [1986] directly before planned calving day. The following levels were used: 1 - bad (notes 1, 2, 3), 2 - suitable (notes 4, 5, 6, 7), 3 - more than enough (notes 8, 9). All the animals were weighted. The calving course was qualified to one of the following categories: N - easy, without any help, T - difficult, with farmer's help or mechanical means use. The ratio of different calving course of Hereford cows depending on their body weight and condition (BCS) just prior to calving was analyzed by ч2 test using SPSS 12.0 software. The delivery course of Hereford cows depending on BCS before calving was determined using analysis of variance method. Correlation coefficient between calving course and Hereford cows BCS before calving was calculated by Spearman method.

Results and discussion. The ratio of different calving categories depending on cow body weight before calving was presented in table 1. Not significant influence of cow body weight on calving quality was noticed, but along with cow body weight increase the percentage of assisted deliveries (human help or mechanical means use) decreased. In the group of the lightest cows the share of difficult calving amounted to 20.7%, whereas in the group of the heaviest ones there were no difficult calvings at all. The results obtained are similar to presented by other authors [Fitzhugh 1978; Morris and Wilton 1976; Notter et al. 1979], who proved, that the heavier cows have usually less problems with calvings. However, in other authors' research the influence of cow body weight on delivery quality was not so evident [Andersen 1978; Dickerson 1978; Morris and Wilton 1977].

According to those experiments the optimal cow body weight and measurements depend mainly on production system, and the benefits resulting from the lower frequency of difficult calvings in big calibre and higher weight cows could be equalize by the higher costs of their basic maintenance requirements. hereford livestock hotel

Calving course type evaluation depending on cow condition before calving was presented in table 2. Statistically significant (P?0.01) influence of BCS of Hereford cows before calving on the delivery quality was noticed. All of the cows with BCS before calving assessed as “bad” (notes 1, 2, 3) had problems at calving and required farmer's help or mechanical means use. Similarly, the majority (82.1%) of cows with BCS notes 8, 9 ("more than enough”) also required farmer's help or mechanical means use. BCS notes 4, 5, 6, 7 were proved as the optimal (92.6%. of calvings were examined as “suitable”).

Many authors [Meijering 1984; Nogalski 2004a; Przysucha et al. 2005; Weiher et al. 1992] emphasized the close association of cow BCS with its delivery quality. BCS evaluated as “more than enough” causes over-fattening of pelvic area and cow decreases the readiness to take delivery efforts, which results in difficult calving frequency increase [Nogalski 2004b; Ruciсski 1998]. Pogorzelska i Szarek [2002] reported, that cows, and especially heifers, of “more than enough” BCS in round-delivery period usually had assisted or even difficult deliveries. It should be also noticed, that cows of different BCS before calving had the longer service period before the next pregnancy [Corah 1989; Whitman et al. 1975]. In spite of the appropriate protein and energy level in the feeding ration, providing of suitable minerals and vitamins is also very important for calving course. Their shortage could be one of the reasons of disorders and complications during delivery as well as higher mortality of newborn calves [Pogorzelska et al. 1998; Pogorzelska and Szarek 2002]. Periodic feedstuff shortages, improper ration balance (protein to energy ration) as well as metabolic diseases are the most common reasons of bad BCS of the cow, and in effect - difficult deliveries increase. The calving course of cows, and especially heifers, is negatively influenced not only by too good, but also by too poor condition [Nogalski 2004b; Philipsson 1976].

Correlation coefficient between calving course and Hereford cows BCS calculated in presented study was low (r = -0.019), but negatively significantly correlated with their condition score.

Conclusions. Summarizing, it should be stated, that the optimal BCS of cows before calving should be “suitable” (4, 5, 6 and 7 points) (according to Richards et al. [1986] scale), when the majority of deliveries was assessed as easy.

All of the cows with BCS before calving assessed as “bad” (notes 1, 2, 3) had problems at calving and required farmer's help or mechanical means use. Similarly, the majority (82.1%) of cows with BCS notes 8, 9 ("more than enough”) also required farmer's help or mechanical means use. BCS notes 4, 5, 6, 7 were proved as the optimal (92.6% of calvings were examined as “suitable”).

Correlation coefficient between calving course and Hereford cows BCS calculated in presented study was low (r = -0.019), but negatively significantly correlated with their condition score.

hereford livestock hotel

Table 1 - Calving course type evaluation depending on cow body weight before calving

Table 2 - Calving course type evaluation depending on cow condition before calving

REFERENCES

1. Andersen B.B, 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to growth and feed conversion in cattle. Anim. Prod., 27, 381-391.

2. Berger P.J, 1994. Genetic prediction for calving ease in the United States: Data, models and use by the dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci., 77, 1146-1153.

3. Berger P.J., Cubas, A.C., Koehler K.J., Healey M.H. 1992. Factors affecting distocia and early calf mortality in Angus cows and heifers. J. Anim. Sci., 70, 1775-1786.

4. Brzozowski P., Reklewska B., Grabowski R., Szymczykiewicz D., Balcerzak K, 1994. Influence of calving difficulty on productivity and fertility of cows from rotational crossbreeding. Pr. Mat. Zoot., 45, 35-41.

5. Brzozowski P., Reklewska B., Zdziarski K, 1998. Zaleїnoњж miкdzy przebiegiem porodуw a wymiarami ciaіa ciel№t pochodz№cych z krzyїowania rotacyjnego. Pr. Mat. Zoot., 52, 61-69.

6. Corah L.R, 1989. Low calf nutrition. Agri-Practice,10, 27.

7. Dickerson G.E, 1978. Animal size and efficiency: basic concepts. Anim. Prod., 27, 367-379.

8. Fitzhugh H.A, 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to the breeding female. Anim. Prod., 27, 393-401.

9. Johanson J.M., Berger P.J, 2003. Birth weight as a predictor of calving ease and perinatal mortality in Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 86, 3745-3755.

10. Mcdermott J.J., Alen O,B., Martin S.W., Alves D.M, 1992. Patterns of stillbirth and dystocia in Ontario cow-calf herds. Canad. J. Vet. Res., 56, 47-55.

11. Meijering A., 1984. Dystocia and stillbirths in cattle - A review of causes, relations and implications. Livest. Prod. Sci., 11, 143.

12. Meyer C.L., Berger P.J., Koehler K.J, 2000. Interactions among factors affecting stillbirth in Holstein cattle in the United States. J. Dairy Sci., 83, 2657-2663.

13. Morris C.A., Wilton J.W, 1976. The influence of body size on the biological efficiency of cows: A review. Can. Anim. Sci., 56:613-647

14. Morris C.A., Wilton J.W, 1977. The influence of body size on the economic efficiency of cows. A review. Anim. Breed. Abstr., 45, 39-153.

15. Nix J.M., Spitzer J.C., Grimes L.W., Plyler B.B, 1998. A retrospective analysis of factors contributing to calf mortality and dystocia in beef cattle. Theriogenology, 49, 1515-1523.

16. Nogalski Z., 2003. Relations between the course of parturition, body weights and measurements of Holstein-Friesian calves. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 48, 2, 51-59.

17. Nogalski Z., 2004a. Tempo wzrostu jaіуwek rasy czarno-biaіej a ich wymiary ciaіa i przebieg porodu. Zesz. Nauk. Prz. Hod. 74, 165-173.

18. Nogalski Z., 2004b. Zootechniczne uwarunkowania jakoњci porodu jaіуwek i krуw czarno-biaіych. Rozpr. i Monogr., 101, UWM Olsztyn.

19. Notter D.R., Sanders J.O., Dickerson G.E., 1979. Simulated efficiency of beef production for Midwestern cow-calf-feedlot management system. II. Mature body size. J. Anim. Sci., 49, 83-91.

20. Philipsson J., 1976. Studies on calving difficulty, stillbirth and associated factors in Swedish cattle breeds. II. Effects on Non-genetic factors. Acta Agric. Scand., 26, 165-174.

21. Pogorzelska J., Romanowski A., Puchajda Z., 1998. Analiza uїytkowania rozpіodowego i rozwуj importowanego z Francji bydіa limousine i charolaise. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocіaw, 336, 143-148.

22. Pogorzelska J., Szarek J., 2002. Porуwnanie wynikуw rozrodu krуw i odchowu ciel№t w stadzie rasy hereford utrzymywanych w rуїnych warunkach њrodowiskowych. Zesz. Nauk. Przegl. Hod., 62, 193-202.

23. Przysucha T., Grodzki H., Brzozowski P., Zdziarski K., 2005. Wpіyw wybranych czynnikуw na przebieg porodуw krуw rasy limousin. Medycyna Wet., 61, 1036-1038.

24. Richards M.W., Spitzer J.C., Warner M.B., 1986. Effect of varying levels of postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive performance in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 62, 300-306.

25. Ruciсski P., 1998. Wybrane aspekty їywienia krуw miкsnych. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocіaw, 336, 75-101.

26. Weiher O., Hoffmann G., Sass D., 1992. Untersuchungen ueber Beziehungen zwischen Beckeninnen - und Beckenaussenmassen bei Schwarzbuntkuehen. Dt. Tierarztl. Wschr., 99, 433-472.

27. Whitman R.W., Remmenga E.E., Wiltbank J.N., 1975. Weight change, condition and beef cow reproduction. J. Anim. Sci., 41, 387

Размещено на Allbest.ru