Livestock production science最新文献

{"title":"Grazing regime as a tool to assess positive side effects of livestock farming systems on wading birds","authors":"Muriel Tichit ,&nbsp;Olivier Renault ,&nbsp;Thomas Potter","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.011","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Wet grasslands support large populations of waders. As these birds are very sensitive to sward height and heterogeneity, grazing management is a key issue to their conservation. On a French coastal marsh consisting of 816 fields of wet grasslands, birds were monitored in spring and grazing regimes were assessed at three periods: year, spring, autumn. Each species was associated with a particular annual grazing index lower than the mean for all grazed fields. During spring, grazing intensity was significantly lower for fields occupied by birds than for those of the entire landscape. Different species of waders showed different preferences to grazing intensity with redshanks and curlews representing two extremes of a gradient going from low to high intensity. In early spring, the more precocious species selected fields with a significantly higher mean and variance in autumn stocking rate than for all grazed fields in previous autumn. These results highlight the need to maintain a variety of grazing regimes if conservation of the waders is to be achieved at the community level. On the basis of our analysis, useful indicators related to thresholds on livestock density and turn-out date can be derived to assess positive side effects of livestock farming systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"96 1","pages":"Pages 109-117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55266466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Southern European grazing lands: Production, environmental and landscape management aspects","authors":"I. Hadjigeorgiou ,&nbsp;K. Osoro ,&nbsp;J.P. Fragoso de Almeida ,&nbsp;G. Molle","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.016","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.016","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Grazing lands and their management in livestock systems are a matter of special importance in the search for sustainability. Socio-economic and ecological objectives should be considered jointly in considering livestock production. In addition to the general issues of biodiversity and habitat preservation, the challenges for their management vary according to the regional conditions. In Southern European environments, where the past changes in livestock farming have led to a general decrease in their use, the questions under study are how to find ways to meet the threats to landscape amenity, biodiversity, the sustainability of local animal feeding resources and the rural population. Grazing lands and their management is also an important target of EU agri-environmental policy. The multifunctional use of this land, which is currently sought, reinforces the need for animal scientists to consider the use and management of grazing lands in reference not only to the techno-economical efficiency of animal feeding systems but also in reference to the long-term (e.g. biodiversity change) and at larger spatial scales (for example the landscape and watershed). An overview of the current challenges attached to grazing lands and their management in livestock farming systems in South European environments, an understanding of the ways to jointly meet production objectives and the realisation of sociological and ecological functions is presented.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"96 1","pages":"Pages 51-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55266615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level","authors":"Annick Gibon","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Grasslands are increasingly considered not only for their contribution to livestock production but also in their various functions with respect to the environment and the landscape. There is an accumulation of scientific evidence about the environmental functions of grasslands, such as their role in the conservation of biodiversity, in the regulation of physical and chemical fluxes in ecosystems, and the mitigation of pollution. Their role in the maintenance of landscapes of value is also important for reasons of landscape amenity and cultural heritage.</p><p>To introduce the challenges these functions bring for grassland management to both science and practice, a description of the benefits currently expected from grasslands and their role in agri-environmental and landscape public policies is given. The current scientific understanding of grassland dynamics in relation to management is then briefly addressed. An analysis of the changes occurring in grassland management practice and research in reference to the whole farm and the landscape is then provided. The diversity of grasslands and their spatial arrangement within a farm and the landscape appear from this analysis as two emergent factors of major importance in the search for sustainable development of livestock farms and the environment. The practical consequences on both livestock farmer practice and the direction of animal production research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"96 1","pages":"Pages 11-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55266432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems","authors":"Niels Halberg ,&nbsp;Hayo M.G. van der Werf ,&nbsp;Claudine Basset-Mens ,&nbsp;Randi Dalgaard ,&nbsp;Imke J.M. de Boer","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Different types of assessment tools have been developed in Europe with the purpose of determining the environmental impact of various livestock production systems at farm level. The assessment tools differ in terms of which environmental objectives are included and how indicators are constructed and interpreted. The paper compares typical tools for environmental assessment of livestock production systems, and recommends selected indicators suitable for benchmarking. The assessment tools used very different types of indicators ranging from descriptions of farm management and quantification of input to estimates of emissions of, e.g., nitrate and ammonia. The indicators should be useful in a benchmarking process where farmers may improve their practices through learning from farms with better agri-environmental performance. An example of this is given using data on P-surplus on pig farms. Some indicators used the area of the farm as the basis of the indicator—e.g. nitrogen surplus per hectare—while others were expressed per unit produced, e.g. emission of greenhouse gasses per kilogram milk. The paper demonstrates that a comparison of organic vs. conventional milk production and comparison of three pig production systems give different results, depending on the basis of the indicators (i.e. per hectare or per kilogram product). Indicators linked to environmental objectives with a local or regional geographical target should be area-based—while indicators with a global focus should be product-based. It is argued that the choice of indicators should be linked with the definition of the system boundaries, in the sense that area-based indicators should include emissions on the farm only, whereas product-based indicators should preferably include emissions from production of farm inputs, as well as the inputs on the actual farm. The paper ends with recommendations for choice of agri-environmental indicators taking into account the geographical scale, system boundary and method of interpretation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"96 1","pages":"Pages 33-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55266478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Risk factors influencing lameness and claw disorders in dairy cows","authors":"J.C. Bielfeldt ,&nbsp;R. Badertscher ,&nbsp;K.-H. Tölle ,&nbsp;J. Krieter","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Claw health of dairy cows was investigated in an observational study in different housing systems in Switzerland. Twenty-five professional hoof trimmers examined lameness and claw disorders in 4621 cows on 290 farms during routine hoof trimming. 82 farms had tie-stall barns without exercise (T1) and 166 had tie-stall barns with exercise (T2), another 42 farms kept their animals in loose housing systems with exercise (L2). The prevalence was 10.0% for lameness (LN), 15.7% for sole disorders (SD), 6.1% for white line disorders (WD), 13.6% for heel erosions (HE), and 5.3% for disorders of skin and interdigital space (ID). LN and SD showed the highest prevalence (13.2%; 16.4%) and the highest odds ratio (OR=1.89; 1.33) in T1. WD was more often detected in L2, accounting for 9.4% (OR=1.0). HE was identified most in T2 (17.1%, OR=4.72) and T1 (13.2%, OR=4.45). Disorders of skin and interdigital space were most frequently found in T2 (7.5%, OR=1.55).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 265-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55262538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing the accuracy of modelling weight gain of cattle using feed efficiency data","authors":"D.L. Robinson","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.016","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.016","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Different methods of estimating weight gain were compared for accuracy and utility, using the amount of error variation from fitting the residual feed intake (RFI) model. Data were collected on 1481 cattle of temperate and tropically adapted breeds, feedlot-finished for the domestic (liveweight 400 kg), Korean (520 kg), or Japanese (steers only; 600 kg) markets. Cattle were tested in 36 groups over 4 years. The aim was to estimate weight gain over the period feed intake was measured, which was at least 49 days and averaged 63 days, including time for animals to adapt to the automatic feeding system. The different estimates were derived from linear and quadratic regressions of weight over time fitted to: F1) all weighings in the feedlot and F2) all weighings in the feedlot excluding atypical records in the first few weeks following feedlot entry. More complex linear and quadratic models were also fitted to weighings when feed intake was being measured, using the amount of feed eaten on the day of weighing, and previous days, to adjust for gut fill. Finally, a random regression model including general trends in the growth of each animal and short term measurement error was fitted to dataset F2 to estimate weight gain for the period feed intake was measured.</p><p>The RFI equation: feed intake=intercept(s)+<em>β</em>_w*mean(weight^0.73)+<em>β</em>_g*weight gain+error (i.e. RFI) was fitted using the different weight gain estimates. Based on mean squared errors from fitting this equation, longer measurement periods generally resulted in more accurate estimates of weight gain. The increased accuracy from using all weight measurements in the feedlot outweighed the loss from not measuring over the desired time interval—i.e. the period for which feed intake was measured.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 187-200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55263143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Breeding objectives for beef cattle used in different production systems: 1. Model development","authors":"M. Wolfová ,&nbsp;J. Wolf ,&nbsp;J. Přibyl ,&nbsp;R. Zahrádková ,&nbsp;J. Kica","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.018","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.018","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A bio-economic model was developed to evaluate utilization of beef bulls in a variety of production systems. The model can simulate life-cycle production of both beef and dairy cow herds with or without an integrated feedlot system. The Markov chain approach is used to simulate herd dynamics. The herd is described in terms of animal states and possible transitions among them. Equilibrium herd structures of the integrated production systems are calculated in their stationary states. The economic efficiency of each system is a function of biological traits of animals and of management and economic parameters. The model allows estimation of marginal economic values for 16 traits separately in each system. The economic weight for each trait or direct and maternal trait component in each selection group and breed of interest is then calculated as the weighted sum of the economic values for the trait in all production systems in which the selection group has an impact. Weighting factors for each system are computed as the product of the number of discounted expressions for direct and maternal trait components transmitted in that system by the selection group and the proportion of total cows belonging to each system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 201-215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55263244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of the Pietrain breed used as terminal boar on Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) in the offspring in four PMWS-affected farms","authors":"Nicolas Rose,&nbsp;Alain Abhervé-Guéguen,&nbsp;Gérald Le Diguerher,&nbsp;Eric Eveno,&nbsp;Jean-Pierre Jolly,&nbsp;Philippe Blanchard,&nbsp;Aurélie Oger,&nbsp;André Jestin,&nbsp;François Madec","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.020","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.020","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The aim of this study was to determine the potential risk factors for PMWS at the individual pig level and assess the effect of the Pietrain paternal genetic background of the animals in a cohort study. The survey was set up in four PMWS-affected farms with 2 repetitions (batches) per farm. A representative sample of 60 pigs per batch, stratified according to the paternal genetic background (Pietrain: yes vs. no), was randomly selected after farrowing. The representative cohort was divided into 8 batches and the pigs were individually monitored from birth to slaughter. Survival analysis was used to determine the factors related to the time to PMWS. The litter-cluster effect was taken into account using the marginal Cox model (robust estimation of the covariance matrix) and the gamma shared frailty model which were compared.</p><p>No protective effect of the Pietrain breed on the time to PMWS and the proportion of affected pigs in the offspring was found in this study. Piglets showing low circovirus type 2 (PCV2) titres at 7 weeks-old with no subsequent seroconversion and piglets from PCV2 negative sows were most likely to be affected by PMWS (HR=7.0 and 2.8, respectively). Active infection of the pregnant dams with parvovirus was related to an increased risk of PMWS in the offspring (HR=2.3). Neck injuries due to poorly performed injections in the dams were associated with an increased risk of PMWS with the marginal model (HR=2.1). Oxytocin injection (dams) during farrowing was protective against PMWS in the offspring (HR=0.6).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 177-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55263284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Aggregate diversity: New approach combining within- and between-breed genetic diversity","authors":"Louis Ollivier,&nbsp;Jean-Louis Foulley","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.01.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.01.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Between-breed genetic diversity is classically considered as a major criterion to be taken into account when setting priorities for conservation of domestic animal breeds. However, it has been argued that methods based on the between-breed component of genetic diversity may not be optimal because they ignore the within-breed component of variation. The paper considers the most common methods used to evaluate those two components when genetic diversity is evaluated on the basis of genetic markers, and proposes to define an aggregate diversity combining linearly the two components. This implies defining for each breed (or population) its contributions to the between-breed and to the within-breed diversity. When defining an aggregate diversity, one can weight these contributions by <em>F</em>_ST and 1−<em>F</em>_ST, respectively, since the fixation index <em>F</em>_ST of Wright represents the proportion of the total genetic variation which is due to differences in allelic frequencies between populations. Such an approach is valid when the objective is genetic improvement by selection within a so-called “meta-population”. However, in a more general context of animal breeding, when heterosis and complementarities between breeds have to be considered, as well as adaptation to specific environments, more weight should be given to the between-breed variation. The proper weight to apply may require solutions adapted to each particular situation. In a long-term conservation perspective, priorities should also take into account the degree of endangerment of each breed. By combining diversity contributions and probability of extinction, a cryopreservation potential (or priority) may be estimated for each breed. The problem is illustrated on a sample of 11 European pig breeds typed for 18 microsatellite loci.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 247-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.01.005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55263362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The effect of strain of Holstein–Friesian, feeding system and parity on lactation curves characteristics of spring-calving dairy cows","authors":"B. Horan ,&nbsp;P. Dillon ,&nbsp;D.P. Berry ,&nbsp;P. O'Connor ,&nbsp;M. Rath","doi":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.021","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of strain of Holstein–Friesian (HF) cow and feeding system (FS) on the lactation curve characteristics of spring-calving cows. The Wilmink model was used to analyse the lactation curves. The three strains of HF cows compared were high production North American (HP), high durability North American (HD) and high Breeding Worth New Zealand (NZ). The three FS compared were a high milk output from pasture feed system (MP), a high concentrate feed system (HC) and a high stocking rate feed system (HS). A repeated measures model with a factorial arrangement of treatments was used to determine the influence of strain of HF, FS, parity and their interactions on the shape of the lactation curve. The curve was described based on yield at calving, the degree of ascendancy between calving and peak yield, and the persistency after peak yield. Analysis of the residuals indicated a good fit of the Wilmink curve to the data set. Strain of HF, FS, parity and the interaction of strain of HF with FS had significant effects on lactation curve characteristics. In all three FS, the HP strain achieved the highest milk production post-claving and peak yield, with the lowest persistency of lactation. In the HC system, milk production post-claving and at peak yield were higher for all three strains. Offering higher levels of concentrate supplementation to the HP strain on a pasture-based system improved their persistency of lactation. The highest persistency of lactation was achieved with NZ strain. The highest milk production post-claving and at peak and lowest persistency was achieved with third parity cows. The existence of strain by feed system interactions for lactation curve parameters clearly exhibits that the optimum system of production varies with strain of HF.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":92934,"journal":{"name":"Livestock production science","volume":"95 3","pages":"Pages 231-241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"55263291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}