Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:39:12.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of crossbreeding with beef bulls in dairy herds: effects on calving difficulty and gestation length

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2012

R. Fouz ,
F. Gandoy ,
M. L. Sanjuán ,
E. Yus  and
F. J. Diéguez
R. Fouz
Affiliation:
AFRICOR Lugo, Ronda de Fingoi, 117, 27002 Lugo, Spain
F. Gandoy
Affiliation:
AFRICOR Lugo, Ronda de Fingoi, 117, 27002 Lugo, Spain
M. L. Sanjuán
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Analysis and Research (Animal Health and Epidemiology Unit), Veterinary Faculty of Lugo, Santiago de Compostela University, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain
E. Yus
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Analysis and Research (Animal Health and Epidemiology Unit), Veterinary Faculty of Lugo, Santiago de Compostela University, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain
F. J. Diéguez*
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Analysis and Research (Animal Health and Epidemiology Unit), Veterinary Faculty of Lugo, Santiago de Compostela University, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain Anatomy and Animal Production Department, Veterinary Faculty of Lugo, Santiago de Compostela University, Campus Universitario, 27002 Lugo, Spain
*
E-mail: franciscojavier.dieguez@usc.es
Get access

Abstract

This study was designed to analyse the evolution in the use of beef bull semen for dairy cattle insemination and, mainly, to assess calving difficulty, gestation length and proportion of stillbirths after breeding pure Holsteins or crossbreeding. Data were collected during 2004 to 2011 for 552 571 Holstein calvings (457 070 Holstein × Holstein, 43 384 Holstein × Limousine, 32 174 Holstein × Belgian Blue and 19 943 Holstein × Galician Blonde). The highest calving difficulty, compared with pure Holsteins was for crosses with Belgian Blue followed by Limousine and Galician Blonde. The Holstein × Limousine and Holstein × Galician Blonde crossbred calves had significantly longer gestation lengths than Holstein × Holstein and Holstein × Belgian Blue calves. Between the latter two, pure Holstein had the shortest gestation length. Calving difficulty and gestation length decreased as the age of the dam advanced. The most difficult calvings were observed in twin calvings, followed by the calvings of male calves and female calves. The gestations leading to the birth of male calves were longer than those leading to female calves and twin calves. Stillbirths were not related to the breed used for mating. Through examining these parameters, sire breed should be considered when selecting a beef breed for the insemination of milk-producing dams.

Keywords

crossbreedingdairycalving difficultygestation lengthstillbirths

Information

Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 211 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Asociación Provincial para o Control de Rendementos (AFRICOR) 2010. Memoria anual. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.africorlugo.com/memorias.aspGoogle Scholar
Bartels, CJM, Arnaiz-Seco, JI, Ruiz-Santa-Quiteria, A, Björkman, C, Frössling, J, von Blumröeder, D, Conraths, FJ, Scahres, G, van Maanen, C, Wouda, W, Ortega-Mora, LM 2006. Supranational comparison of Neospora caninum seroprevalences in cattle in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology 137, 17–27.Google Scholar
Berglund, B, Steinbock, L, Elvander, M 2003. Causes of stillbirth and time of death in Swedish Holstein calves examined post mortem. Acta Veterinaria Scandinava 44, 111–120.Google Scholar
Bicalho, RC, Galvão, KN, Cheong, SH, Gilbert, RO, Warnick, LD, Guard, CL 2007. Effect of stillbirths on dam survival and reproduction performance in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2797–2803.Google Scholar
Blöttner, S, Heins, BJ, Wensch-Dorendorf, M, Hansen, LB, Swalve, HH 2011. Brown Swiss × Holstein crossbreds compared with pure Holsteins for calving traits, body weight, backfat thickness, fertility, and body measurements. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1058–1068.Google Scholar
Dal Zotto, R, Penasa, M, De Marchi, M, Cassandro, M, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Bittante, G 2009. Use of crossbreeding with beef bulls in dairy herds: effect on age, body weight, price, and market value of calves sold at livestock auctions. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3053–3059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dematawewa, CMB, Berger, PJ 1997. Effect of dystocia on yield, fertility and cow losses and an economic evaluation of dystocia scores for Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 754–761.Google Scholar
de Maturana, EL, Wu, XL, Gianola, D, Weigel, KA, Rosa, GJ 2009. Exploring biological relationships between calving traits in primiparous cattle with a Bayesian recursive model. Genetics 181, 277–287.Google Scholar
Fouz, F, Gandoy, F, Sanjuán, ML, Yus, E, Diéguez, FJ 2011. Factors associated with 56-day non-return rate in dairy cattle. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 6, 648–654.Google Scholar
Fouz, R 2007. Cruce con toros de razas de carne en vacas de raza frisona. Acruga 34, 16–17.Google Scholar
Heins, BJ, Hansen, L, Seykora, AJ 2006. Calving difficulty and stillbirths of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2805–2810.Google Scholar
de Maturana, EL, Ugarte, E, González-Recio, O 2007. Impact of calving ease on functional longevity and herd amortization costs in Basque Holsteins using survival analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4451–4457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltecca, C, Khatib, H, Schutzcalfkus, VR, Hoffman, PC, Weigel, KA 2006. Changes in conception rate, calving performance, and calf health and survival from the use of crossbred Jersey × Holstein sires as mates for Holstein dams. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2747–2754.Google Scholar
Maning, EJB, Collins, MT 2001. Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: pathogen, pathogenesis and diagnosis. Revue Scientifique et Technique 20, 133–155.Google Scholar
McGuirk, BJ, Forsyth, R, Dobson, H 2007. Economic cost of difficult calving in the United Kingdom dairy herd. Veterinary Record 161, 685–687.Google Scholar
Morris, ST, Parker, WJ, Purchas, RW, McCutcheon, SN 1992. Dairy crossbreeding alternatives to improve New Zealand beef production. New Zealand Grassland Association 54, 19–22.Google Scholar
Nadarajah, K, Burnside, EB, Schaeffer, LR 1989. Factors affecting gestation length in Ontario Holsteins. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 69, 1083–1086.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 2005. Livestock Historical Track Records. USDA. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/lvst0905.pdfGoogle Scholar
Olson, KM, Cassell, BG, McAllister, JA, Washburn, SP 2009. Dystocia, stillbirth, gestation length, and birth weight in Holstein, Jersey, and reciprocal crosses from a planned experiment. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6167–6175.Google Scholar
Sørensen, MK, Norberg, E, Pedersen, J, Christensen, LG 2008. Invited review: crossbreeding in dairy cattle: a Danish perspective. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4116–4128.Google Scholar
Steinbock, L, Näsholm, A, Berglund, B, Johansson, K, Philipsson, J 2003. Genetic effects on stillbirth and calving difficulty in Swedish Holsteins at first and second calving. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2228–2235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szücs, E, Gulyas, L, Cziszter, LT, Demirkan, I 2009. Stillbirth in dairy cattle: a review. Zootehnie şi Biotehnologii 42, 622–636.Google Scholar
Wolfova, J, Wolf, J, Kvapilik, J, Kica, J 2007. Selection for profit in cattle: II. Economic weights for dairy and beef sires in crossbreeding systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2456–2467.Google Scholar