Body and milk production traits as indicators of energy requirements and efficiency of purebred Holstein and 3-breed rotational crossbred cows from Viking Red, Montbéliarde, and Holstein sires

This study aimed to compare rotational 3-breed crossbred cows of Viking Red, Montbéliarde, and Holstein breeds with purebred Holstein cows for a range of body measurements, as well as different metrics of the cows’ productivity and production efficiency. The study involved 791 cows (440 crossbreds and 351 purebreds), that were managed across 2 herds. Within each herd, crossbreds and purebreds were reared and milked together, fed the same diets, and managed as one group. The heart girth, height at withers, and body length were measured, and body condition score (BCS) was determined on all the cows on a single test day. The body weight (BW) of 225 cows were used to develop an equation to predict BW from body size traits, parity, and days in milk, which was then used to estimate the BW of all the cows. Equations from the literature were used to estimate body protein and lipid contents using the predicted BW and BCS. Evidence suggests that maintenance energy requirements may be closely related to body protein mass, and Holstein and crossbred cows may be different in body composition. Therefore, we computed the requirements of net energy for maintenance (NEM) on the basis either of the metabolic weight (NEM-MW: 0.418 MJ/kg of metabolic BW) or of the estimated body protein mass according to a coefficient (NEM-PM: 0.631 MJ/kg body protein mass) computed on the subset comprising the purebred Holstein. On the same day when body measurements were collected, individual test-day milk yield and fat and protein contents were retrieved once from the official Italian milk recording system, and milk was sampled to determine fresh cheese yield. Measures of NEM were used to scale the production traits. Statistical analyses of all variables included the fixed effects of herd, days in milk, parity, and genetic group (purebred Holstein and crossbred), and the herd × genetic group interaction. External validation of the equation predicting BW yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.94 and an average bias of −4.95 ± 36.81 kg. The crossbreds had similar predicted BW and NEM-MW compared with the Holsteins. However, NEM-PM of crossbreds was 3.8% lower than that of the Holsteins, due to their 11% greater BCS and different estimated body composition. The crossbred cows yielded 4.8% less milk and 3.4% less milk energy than the purebred Holsteins. However, the differences between genetic groups were no longer significant when the production traits were scaled on NEM-PM, suggesting that the crossbreds and purebreds have the same productive ability and efficiency per unit of body protein mass. In conclusion, measures of productivity and efficiency that combine the cows’ production capability with traits related to body composition and the energy cost of production seem to be more effective criteria for comparing crossbred and purebred Holstein cows than just milk, fat, and protein yields. Key words: crossbreeding, body size, body condition score, milk yield traits, Holstein Friesian