Milk Yield and Quality in Cows Sired by Different Beef Breeds

Brown, Michael A.; Lalman, David

doi:10.15232/s1080-7446(15)30620-3

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean levels of protein, lactose, and solids non-fat were similar to those reported for other cattle breeds and for crosses with Bos indicus (Melton et al, 1967;Daley et al, 1986;Cerdótes et al, 2004;Brown and Lalman, 2010;Martínez Velázquez et al, 2010).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Therefore, milk production is considered a key component of maternal ability (Cerdótes et al, 2004;Martínez, 2009), and in beef cattle, milk production is a main factor influencing pre-weaning growth (Clutter andNielsen, 1987, Meyer et al, 1994). Consequently, the contents of milk components and their variations have been proposed as significant factors influencing the development of calves during the pre-weaning period (Brown et al, 2002;Brown and Lalman, 2010;Martínez Velázquez et al, 2010). Previous studies have examined the percentages of milk components and their relationships with pre-weaning growth (Rutledge et al, 1971;Totusek et al, 1973;Mondragon et al, 1983), and other studies have examined the same correlations of growth with milk components by weight (Jeffery and Berg, 1971;Marston et al, 1992;Martínez Velázquez et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Milk composition and its relationship with weaning weight in Charolais catte

Contreras

Parra‐Bracamonte

Bustamante³

et al. 2015

R. Bras. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-To determine the effects of a number of non-genetic factors on milk components and estimate their indirect relationships with weaning weight (WW205), the percentages of protein, fat, lactose and solids non-fat in Charolais cows from Mexico were estimated. Lactation period (LP) and calving season (CS) had significant effects on protein and fat, whereas lactose and solids non-fat were only affected by the LP. Sire line and age of the dam had significant effects on calf birth weight, while CS affected WW205. Residual correlations between milk components and WW205 suggest a low but significant correlation with lactose. These results demonstrate the importance of several non-genetic factors on the composition of milk from Charolais cows managed under extensive cow-calf production systems and the indirect relationships between these factors and the weaning weight of a calf.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Milk composition and its relationship with weaning weight in Charolais catte

Contreras

Parra‐Bracamonte

Bustamante³

et al. 2015

R. Bras. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pastures were approximately 64.7 ha, with 25 pairs per pasture. Further details on herd and pasture management can be found in Brown and Lalman (2010).…”

Section: Animal Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Milking procedures were as described by Brown and Lalman (2010). Briefly, calves were separated from cows at approximately 1900 h the evening before milking and were held overnight for approximately 14 h, with water provided.…”

Section: Milk Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Milk production traits of beef cows as affected by horn fly count and sire breed type1

Mays

Brown

Tunglen

et al. 2014

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Horn fly infestations negatively impact economic traits of beef cattle. Our objective was to determine the impact of horn flies on beef cattle milk yield and quality. Cows (n = 53) were derived from Brangus dams and sired by Bonsmara (n = 7), Brangus (n = 13), Charolais (n = 8), Gelbvieh (n = 5), Hereford (n = 12), and Romosinuano (n = 8) bulls. Horn fly counts and estimates of milk yield and quality were recorded monthly from May through October on individual cows. Data for milk yield and quality and horn fly count were analyzed by mixed model least squares using a linear model including sire breed, cow in sire breed, month, and month × sire breed. Effects of horn fly count on milk yield and quality were estimated by analysis of covariance using log horn fly count and log horn fly count × sire breed. Horn fly counts varied by month (P < 0.0001), with lowest population recorded in May (99 flies) and peaked in August (520 flies). Bonsmara and Gelbvieh sired cows had greater (P < 0.05) milk yield compared to Hereford sired cows (8.75 and 8.62 vs. 6.02 kg/d, respectively). Milk yield from Charolais, Romosinuano, and Brangus sired cows was intermediate (7.28, 7.00, and 7.06 kg/d, respectively). Regression of milk yield on fly count differed (P < 0.05) among sire breeds. Milk yield was reduced (P < 0.05) by 0.99 and 0.64 kg/d per unit increase in log horn fly count in Gelbvieh and Bonsmara sired cows. Regression coefficient for milk yield on log horn fly count was reduced (P < 0.01) in Gelbvieh sired cows when compared with Brangus, Charolais, Hereford, and Romosinuano sired cows, and coefficients for Bonsmara sired cows were reduced (P < 0.05) in comparison to Brangus sired cows. Increases in log fly count were associated with decreases (P < 0.05) in milk fat, solids-not-fat, and milk urea nitrogen. Milk yield was reduced (P < 0.05) by increased fly numbers depending on month of lactation and interaction with log horn fly count. In May, June, and July milk yield was reduced 0.72, 0.68, and 0.71 kg/d per unit increase in log horn fly count. Our results indicate that horn fly infestations reduce milk yield and quality of spring-calving beef cows depending on sire breed and month of lactation. Development of sustainable beef production systems may include selecting breed types whose milk yield and quality is less influenced by horn flies, allowing for better expression of genetic potential for milk yield in nutritionally challenging environments.

show abstract

“…8 Hence, the selection for excessive milk and growth could limit the expression of these traits by the forage system and not by the genetic capacity of the cattle. 10 Even if growth potential was maximized, the added output from added cow weight is not economical, even during periods of higher market values. For example, analysis of calf weaning weights against mature cow weights from six ranches in Oklahoma and Arkansas revealed a range of 6 to 17 lb of additional calf weaning weight for each additional 100 lb of cow weight.…”

Section: Cattle Industry Trends and Effects On Animal Maintenance Cosmentioning

confidence: 99%