Relationships between Body Condition Score in Dry-Off, Calving or Different Lactation Days and Selected Reproductive Parameters in Dairy Cows

Year 2017, Volume: 11 Issue: 33, 143 - 148, 28.12.2017

Nurcan Karslıoğlu Kara , Mehmet Koyuncu

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between body condition score in dry-off, calving or different lactation days and selected reproductive parameters in dairy cows. In this study, body condition scoring (using a 5-point scale with quarter-point divisions) was performed on 130 Holstein dairy cows in six period included dry-off (BCSD), calving (BCSC), days in milk (DIM) 70, 140, 210 and 280 (BCS70, BCS140, BCS210, BCS280) and analyzed its relationships with selected reproductive parameters (calving interval [CI], calving to first service [CFS], calving to conception interval [CCI] and service per conception [SC]). The relationships among the BCS assessment periods, the relationships between the difference of BCSD and BCS70 (BCSD-70) with BCSD and BCS140 (BCSD-140) and calving to first service (CFS) were found important (P<0.01, P<0.05 respectively). Also, the relationship between CFS and calving interval (CI) and average BCS (BCSavg) during lactation were found important (P<0.01, P<0.05). While the relationship with dry-off and calving and selected reproductive parameters was not found to be statistically important, an important relationship was found between BCS70 and CFS, CI (P<0.01, P<0.05), BCS140 and BCS210 with CFS (P<0.01, P<0.05). When the effect of the determined relationships were assessed, the effects of BCS70 and BCS140 on CFS were found important (P<0.05, P<0.01). As a conclusion, it can be said that optimum BCS interval in DIM70 and DIM140 are 2.0< BCS70 ≤ 3.5 and 2.0< BCS140 ≤ 3.75; respectively for minimum CFS. Also in considering the possible negative effects of BCS loss in early lactation on reproductive performance, the optimum BCS interval in calving has been determined to be 2.25≤ BCSC ≤ 3.25 for minimum condition loss in postpartum in this study.

Keywords

Body condition score , Dairy cow , Holstein , Reproduction

References

• Bewley JM, Schutz MM (2008). An Interdisciplinary Review of Body Condition Scoring for Dairy Cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist. 24:507–529.
• Broster WH, Broster VJ (1998). Body score of dairy cows. J. Dairy Res. 65:155-173.
• Daşkın A (2011). Reprodüksiyonun Yönetimi. In: Sığırcılık işletmelerinde reprodüksiyon yönetimi ve suni tohumlama, (Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi).Ankara, pp 197-205.
• Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G (1989). A body condition scoring chart for Holstein Dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 72: 68-78.
• Friggens NC (2003). Body lipid reserves and the reproductive cycle: Towards a better understanding. Livest. Prod. Sci. 83:219–226.
• Gearhart M A, Curtis CR, Erb HN, Smith RD, Sniffen CJ, Chase LE, Coopers MD (1990). Relationship of Changes in Condition Score to Cow Health in Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 73:3132-3140.
• Garnsworthy PC (1988). The effect of energy reserves at calving on performance of dairy cows. In: Gransworthy PC, editor. Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow. Butterworths: London; p. 157-170.
• Lucy MC (2001). Reproductive loss in high-producing dairy cattle: where will it end?. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1277-93.
• Lucy MC, Verkerk GA, Whyte BE, Macdonald KA, Burton L, Cursons RT, Roche JR, Holmes CW (2009). Somatotropic axis components and nutrient partitioning in genetically diverse dairy cows managed under different feed allowances in a pasture system. J. Dairy Sci. 92:526–539.
• Pryce JE, Coffey MP, Brotherstone S (2000). The genetic relationship between calving interval, body condition score and linear type and management traits in registered Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 83:2664–2671.
• Pryce JE, Coffey, MP, Simm G (2001). The Relationship Between Body Condition Score and Reproductive Performance. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1508-1515.
• Roche JR, Macdonald KA, Burke CR, Lee JM, Berry DP (2007a). Associations among body condition score, body weight, and reproductive performance in seasonal-calving dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 90:376–391.
• Roche JR, Berry DP, Lee JM, Macdonald KA, Boston RC (2007b). Describing the Body Condition Score Change Between Successive. J. Dairy Sci. 90:4378–4396.
• Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stafford KJ, Berry DP (2009). Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 92 :5769–5801.
• SPSS (2008). for Windows. Release 17.0, SPSS Inc
• Varışlı Ö, Tekin N (2011). Holştayn ırkı ineklerde vücut kondisyon skorunun fertilite ve bazı reprodüktif parametrelere etkisi. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg. 58: 111-115.
• Veerkamp RF (1998). Selection for economic efficiency of dairy cattle using information on live weight and feed intake: a review. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1109–1119.
• Vizcarra JA, Wettemann RP, Spitzer JC, Morrison DG (1998). Body condition at parturition and postpartum weight gain influence luteal activity and concentrations of glucose, insulin, and nonesterified fatty acids in plasma of primiparous beef cows. J Anim Sci. 76(4):927-936.