Effect of parity on back fat thickness, body condition score and milk yield in Jersey crossbred cows of lower Gangetic region
284 / 135
Authors
-
Abhishek Paul
Asst. Prof., Dept. Of LPM, CAU, IMPHAL.
PhD. Scholar, National Dairy Reaearch Institute
-
Champak Bhakat
-
Santu Mondal
Keywords:
BCS, Back fat thickness (BFT), Jersey crossbred, Milk yield, and ParityAbstract
The present experiment was carried out to know the effect of parities on body score, back fat thickness and milk yield of Jersey crossbred cows. A total of 43 crossbred jersey cattle were examined for 120 days postpartum and divided into four groups, based on their parity number. Correlation and relationship study has revealed significant effect of parity on various parameters. The overall correlation coefficient between BCS and BFT were found to be 54%, 92%, 94% and 90% for P1, P2, P3 and P4 respectively. However, positive to negative significant correlation between BFT and milk yield by parity 1,2,3,4 were 46%, 26%, -10% and -12% respectively. Increased BCS at calving was associated with greater MY in first and second parity cows, and reduced MY in cows of third parity or greater. Furthermore, the correlation coefficient between BFT and BW were found to be low in P1 (r=0.58) and high in P4 (r=0.78). The changes in body fat thickness (BFT) and body weight (BW) by parity difference were most distinct in younger cows i.e. -47.92 percent and -12.05 percent respectively. Relationship (R²) between BFT and BCS in different parity group were 0.29, 0.87, 0.85 and 0.83 respectively (p<0.001). Finally, in case of primiparous cow BFT is valid for estimation of subcutaneous fat and second parity onwards BCS can be adopted to predict the body fat reserve of crossbred animals.Â
References
1. Berry, D., Macdonals, K., Penno, J. and Roche, R (2006) Association between body condition score
2. and live weight in pasture-based Holstein Friesian dairy cows. J. Dairy Res. 73:487-491.
3. Coffey M.P., Hickey J., and Brotherstone S (2006) Genetic Aspects of Growth of Holstein-Friesian
4. Dairy Cows from Birth to Maturity, J. Dairy Sci. 89:322–329.
5. Dechow, C. D., Rogers, G. W. and Clay, J. S. (2002) Heritability and correlations amongbody
6. condition score loss, body condition score, production and reproductive performance. J.
7. Dairy Sci., 85: 3062-3070.
8. Edmonson AJ, Lean LJ, Weaver LD, Farver T & Webster G (1989) A body condition scoring chart
9. for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72 68–78.
10. Evans, D. G. (1978) The interpretation and analysis of subjective body condition scores. Anim. Prod.
11. :119–125.
12. Flamenbaum, I., Wolfenson, D., Kunz, P.L., Maman, M., Berman, A. (1995) Interactions between
13. body condition at calving and cooling of dairy cows during lactation in summer. J. Dairy
14. Sci. 78:2221-2229.
15. Foschi, G. (2009) Automatic body condition scoring on dairy cows of the Swedish Red breed. MSc
16. Thesis in Animal Science. 289. 1-38.
17. Friggens, N.C. and Badsberg, J.H. (2007) The effect of breed and parity on curves of body condition
18. during lactation estimated using a non-linear function. Animal, 1:page565-574.
19. Ji-Yeon Lee, Ill-Hwa Kim (2006) Advancing parity is associated with high milk production at the cost
20. of body condition and increased periparturient disorders in dairy herd. J. Vet. Sci. 7(2),
21. –166.
22. Klawuhn D, Staufenbiel R (1997). Aussagekraft der Rückenfettdicke zum Körperfettgehalt beim Rind.
23. Tierarztl Prax: 25:133–138.
24. Kristensen, E, Dueholm L, Vink D, Andersen JE, Jakobsen EB, Illum-Nielsen S, Petersen FA, and
25. Enevoldsen C (2006) Withinand across-person uniformity of body condition scoring in
26. Danish Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 89:3721–3728.
27. Maltz, E (1997) The body weight of dairy cow: III. Use for on-line management of individual cows.
28. Liv. Prod. Sci. 48: 187-200.
29. Mikóné EJ, Kovács RK, Varga AV, Gráff MG (2013) Correlation between body condition and animal
30. health problems of Holstein Friesian cows. Available from:
31. http://lsma.ro/index.php/lsma/article/view/24 3/3
32. Mushtaq A, Qureshi MS, Khan S, Habib G, Swati ZA, Rahman SU (2012) Body condition score as a
33. marker of milk yield and composition in dairy animals. J. Anim. Plant Sci.
34. (Suppl.3):169-173.
35. Nicoll, G (1981) Sources of variation in the condition scoring of cows. Irish journal of agricultural
36. research: 27-33.
37. Paul, A, Bhakat C, Mondal S, Mandal A (2020) An observational study investigating uniformity of
38. manual body condition scoring in dairy cows. Ind. J. Dairy Sci :73, 77–80.
39. Re´mond B, Cisse M, Ollier A & Chilliard Y (1991) Slow release somatotropin in dairy heifers and
40. cows fed two levels of energy concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 74 1370–1381.
41. Schwager-Suter R, Stricker C, Erdin D, and Kunzi N (2000) Relationship between body condition
42. scores and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat and m.l. dorsi in dairy cows
43. differing in size and type. Anim. Sci. 71:465–470.
44. Staufenbiel R (1992) Energie- und Fettstoffwechsel des Rindes: untersuchungskonzept und Messung
45. der Rückenfettdicke. Mh Vet Med; 47:467–474.
46. Taylor VJ, Beever DE, Bryant MJ & Wathes DC (2003) Metabolic profiles and progesterone cycles
47. in first lactation dairy cows. Theriogenology 59: 1661–1677.
48. Veerkamp R (1998) Selection for economic efficiency of dairy cattle using information on live weight
49. and feed intake: A review. J. Dairy Sci. 81: 1109-1119.
50. Wathes DC, Taylor VJ, Cheng Z & Mann GE (2003) Follicle growth, corpus luteum function and
51. their effects on embryo development in postpartum dairy cows. Reproduction Supplement
52. :1–19.
53. Wildman, E E, Jones GM, Wagner PE, Boman RL, Troutt HF, and Lesch TN (1982) A dairy cow
54. body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected production characteristics.J.
55. Dairy Sci. 65:495–497.
