Next Article in Journal
The Adrenal Cortisol Response to Increasing Ambient Temperature in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)
Next Article in Special Issue
Association of Herd Size with Stillbirth and Dystocia Rates in Japanese Black Cattle
Previous Article in Journal
Avian Cell Culture Models to Study Immunomodulatory Properties of Bioactive Products
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/ani12060671
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Calving Ease Risk Factors and Subsequent Survival, Fertility and Milk Production in Italian Holstein Cows

by
Monica Probo
1,*,
Marcello Guadagnini
2,
Giulia Sala
1,
Paola Amodeo
3 and
Agostino Bolli
4
1
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Milan, Via dell’Università 6, 26900 Lodi, Italy
2
Elanco Animal Health, Via dei Colatori, 12, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
3
Independent Researcher, Via Carpaccio 3, 20133 Milan, Italy
4
Alta Italia s.r.l., Via Mascherpa 10, 20067 Paullo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(6), 671; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060671
Submission received: 1 February 2022 / Revised: 27 February 2022 / Accepted: 6 March 2022 / Published: 8 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Minimizing Pregnancy Loss and Calving Difficulty in Cattle)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Several studies have analyzed the potential risk factors for assisted calvings and the consequences of calving ease on cow performances. The present study used national data to focus on Italian Holstein cow herds. In summary, herd, number of calvings/herd/year, cow parity, gestation length, twinning, calf sex, previous calving-to-conception interval, dry period and close-up length, and calving season were identified as risk factors associated with calving ease. Regarding lactation performance, cows with assisted calving had higher 30 days in milk (DIM) culling risk, lower 150 DIM pregnancy risk and lower milk yield, measured as 60-d cumulative and as 305-d predicted milk yield. These results may be beneficial to focus attention on control, management and specific factors associated with calving ease in Italian Holstein herds and also to support adequate training and education of the personnel.

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to investigate the main risk factors associated with calving ease (CE) in Italian Holstein cow herds, and to estimate the association between CE and subsequent survival, fertility and milk production. Data obtained from Holstein cows in 40 Italian herds were retrospectively investigated. Calvings were surveilled and classified into two categories of CE, unassisted calving or assisted calving, based on the need for intervention. The following factors were analyzed as possible risk factor affecting CE: herd, number of calvings/herd/year, age at first calving (AFC), cow parity, gestation length, twinning, calf sex, previous calving-to-conception interval, previous milk yield, dry period and close-up length, and season of calving. The association between CE and culling risk within the first 30 days-in-milk (DIM), cumulative 60-d milk yield and predicted 305-d milk yield, and pregnancy risk within 150 DIM were also investigated. Of the 47,672 calvings, 37,892 (79.5%) were unassisted, while 9780 (20.5%) required some type of assistance. Among the risk factors, only the AFC was not correlated with CE, while for all the other risk factors an association with CE was detected. Assisted calvings were associated with an increased culling risk at 30 DIM, decreased 60-d milk yield, decreased 305-d milk yield and reduced pregnancy risk at 150 DIM. In conclusion, dairy herd management should aim at correcting/reducing the risk factors in order to limit the incidence of assisted calving, and possibly improve the quality of calving assistance; controlling CE within the herd is crucial to reducing culling risk, and achieving higher lactation and reproductive performance.

1. Introduction

Genetic improvement of livestock during the second half of the 20th century using pedigree and performance data has been very successful, particularly in dairy cattle populations [1]. The primary selection emphasis for dairy cattle is on maximizing genetic gain and income through yield traits, but economic efficiency can be further enhanced by adequate emphasis on secondary traits that directly or indirectly affect production. Calving ease (CE) is one of the most economically significant secondary traits that directly influences the profitability of herds and the animals’ welfare [2,3]. Its estimated heritability ranges from 0.03 to 0.20 [4,5,6], and it has no genetic correlation with yield traits [6]. The economic importance of CE in the dairy industry concerns not only the short-term farm profits through the loss of calf, death of dam, veterinary fees, and extra labors [7,8], but also the long-term animal performance (i.e., health issues, fertility problems, reduced production, premature culling) [9].
At the herd level, control of dystocia is dependent upon specific sire selection, heifer growth and dry period management [10]. Moreover, farmers’ education for adequate periparturient management and obstetrical assistance is mandatory [11]. Veterinary literature is rich in investigations regarding risk factors and consequences of dystocia in dairy and beef cattle, but often different CE scores and dystocia definitions are employed, hampering comparisons. Dystocia scoring systems can in fact vary from two-point [12] to seven-point [13] scales, with thresholds of two or greater generally considered as assisted calving, and three or greater considered as a difficult calving. What is evident from the general research is that any calving assistance can be associated with reduced subsequent fertility and productivity [14]. Milk yield losses after a difficult calving have been quantified previously [15,16,17]; however, estimates are generally referred only to cases of dystocia, thus underestimating the actual need for calving assistance.
A recent investigation reported prevalence and risk factors of dystocia in Italian herds [18], but different cattle breeds were enrolled, and lactation performances were not evaluated. The hypothesis was that, by analyzing data obtained from a unique cattle breed and registered through a widespread herd management software system, it would be possible to better describe CE in Italian dairy herds. The objective of this work was therefore to retrospectively investigate the CE in Italian Holstein cows, to assess its correlation with specific risk factors and to estimate the effect of CE on subsequent survival, fertility and milk production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Herds and Cows Data

This retrospective observational study involved the analysis of culling, fertility and milk production data collected from January 2019 to December 2020. Recruitment criteria for dairy herds were: a minimum size of 100 cows; the use of Dairy Comp 305® (Valley Ag Software, Tulare, CA, USA) to record herd data for a minimum of 2 years previously; membership of the Italian National Breeders Association for milk production (AIA). According to these criteria and on the basis of their consistency over time in recording CE, a total number of 40 free-stall dairy herds spread throughout Italy were selected out of 63 originally participating in the project; in order to standardize the data, only records referring to Holstein–Friesian cows were considered and lactations with less than 260 days of gestation length were excluded.
In all herds, except 3, cows were fed a corn silage and haylage based diet with forage percentage ranging from 40% to 55% (as fed). In the other 3 herds, as their milk production is directed to Parmigiano Reggiano production, cows were fed a dry diet based on alfalfa hay, grass hay and concentrates with forage percentage ranging from 33% to 45%, according to the Italian product rulebook that does not allow the use of any ensiled ingredients.
For each lactation, the following data were considered: CE (see Section 2.2), herd, number of calvings/herd/year (categorized in <500 calvings/herd/year, 500–1000 calvings/herd/year, >1000 calvings/herd/year), age at first calving (AFC), cow parity (1, 2, ≥3), calving season (categorized as winter, spring, summer and autumn according to the northern hemisphere), gestation length (categorized as <274 d, 274–279 d, >279 d), twinning, calf sex in singleton calvings, previous lactation days open (previous calving-to-conception interval categorized as ≤200 d and >200 d), previous 305-d mature equivalent (ME) milk yield, dry period length (categorized as <44 d, 44–70 d, >70 d) and close-up (categorized as <18 d, 18–25 d, >25 d) length, culling risk within the first 30 days-in-milk (DIM), 60-d cumulative milk production and predicted 305-d milk yield, and pregnancy risk within 150 DIM. For each, continuous variable classes were established based on data distribution and usefulness of the categorization.

2.2. Calving Ease

Farmers or specific technicians, upon observing parturition, assigned a CE score according to the degree of assistance provided. Calvings were first classified according to the National Breeders Association standards (Associazione Italiana Allevatori, AIA, Roma, Italy) in unassisted calvings, calvings needing manual intervention, calvings needing a caesarean section, and calvings needing a fetotomy. Subsequently, in order to avoid scatter of data, calvings were merged into two groups, namely calvings needing for intervention, or assisted calvings, and unassisted calvings. As stated by [10] assisted calving may be defined as a calving where assistance is rendered, although this may not result in dystocia.

2.3. Fertility and Milk Production

After a voluntary waiting period specific for each herd, cows were submitted to different protocols for the first insemination using frozen semen. In 4 of the enrolled herds, cows were submitted to a Presynch-OvSynch protocol [19,20], while in 25 herds cows were subjected to a Double-OvSynch protocol [21]. In 2 herds, insemination was performed using a combination of estrus detection and Ovsynch protocol, while in 5 herds cows were inseminated using only estrus detection. In 4 herds the reproductive management was changed over time during the observation period from estrus detection only to timed AI using Double-Ovsynch. The second and further inseminations were performed on estrus detection using sensors and/or Ovsynch. Heifers were inseminated using female selected sex-sorted semen in all herds, except four.
Daily milk was monitored through milk meters. Monthly milk recording was performed by trained technicians of the local milk test day organizations, and according to the guidelines of the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) [22].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data regarding each single herd were exported from Dairy Comp 305® herd management software to a Microsoft Excel® file (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA), and all statistical analyses were performed using JMP15.1® (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics were performed and continuous variables were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Statistical difference between herds was assessed through χ2 test. Studied risk factors for assisted calvings were: number of calvings/herd/year, AFC in months (only for primiparous cows), cow parity, calving season, gestation length, twinning, calf sex in singleton calvings, previous lactation days open (previous calving-to-conception interval), dry period and close-up length. For each risk factor, a dedicated multiple logistic regression model has been made in order to address its correlation with CE, accounting for specific other explanatory variables. The statistical model used for each risk factor and the variables included in each model are reported in Table 1. Moreover, using dedicated multiple linear regression models, the correlation between milk production in the subsequent lactation and other variables, including CE, has been studied (Table 2). The association between CE and time to conception was censored at 150 DIM, using a separate Cox proportional hazard model for primiparous and multiparous cows. Likewise, the correlation between CE and time to culling within 30 DIM was described using a Cox proportion Hazard model for first lactation (LACT) animals and a different one for multiparous cows. The statistical approach used to correlate CE with reproduction, culling and the variables included in each model are reported in Table 2. The significance and tendency levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.1, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The minimum size of the enrolled herds was 121 cows, the maximum was 1921 cows (mean ± SD: 690.45 ± 151.32). Ultimately, the data set included a total of 47,672 calvings in a 2 year period, with 22,288 calvings taking place in 2019 and 25,384 occurring in 2020. The mean number of lactations analyzed for a single herd was 1192 ± 680, ranging from 430 to 3865 lactations. The mean (±SD) 305-d milk production of the herds was 10,782 (±2178) kg/cow. Assisted calvings accounted for a total of 9780 (20.5%), while 37,892 (79.5%) did not require assistance.

3.2. Risk Factors for CE

Distribution of assisted calving prevalence among the 40 herds is reported in Figure 1. The odds ratios (OR) and confidence interval (95% C.I.) for the association between evaluated factors and CE are reported in Table 3. Calving ease was associated with herd factor (p < 0.0001), and with the number of calvings/herd/year categories (p < 0.0001). Mean (±SD) AFC, referred to the 17,159 primiparous cows, was 24 (±2.11) months; 52% (n = 8938) of heifers calved at an age between 23 and 26 months, 33% (n = 5705) calved at less than 23 months, while AFC was >26 months in 15% (n = 2516) of the heifers. According to the statistical analysis, AFC in categories was not associated with CE score (p = 0.283). A total of 36% (n = 17,159) of the lactation records belonged to primiparous cows (LACT = 1), 27% (n = 12,770) to second parity cows (LACT = 2), and 37% (n = 17,743) to ≥third parity cows (LACT = 3+). Calving ease was associated with parity, as assisted calving prevalence increased with increasing parity (p < 0.0001). The OR (95% C.I.) for assisted calving in LACT = 3+ cows was 1.24 (1.16–1.32) when compared to LACT = 2 cows, and 1.29 (1.21–1.37) when compared to LACT = 1. The OR remained unvaried also forcing models by introducing calf gender as a factor. No differences were found in CE between first and second parity cows (p = 0.263). Mean (±SD) gestation length was 275 ± 9 d; cows with a gestation length >279 d (n = 12,719; 27%) had greater risk of assisted calvings compared to cows with a gestation length ranging from 274–279 d (n = 21144; 44%) and to cows with a gestation <274 d (n = 13,809; 29%). In 97.3% of cases, calvings were singleton, and gave birth to 26,109 female calves (56.4%) and to 20,196 (43.6%) male calves. Calf gender in singleton calvings was associated with CE, as male calves were more likely to require assistance at birth than female calves (OR (95% C.I.): 1.39 (1.30–1.48)). A total of 82% of female calves were delivered without assistance compared to 78% of male calves. Twinning occurred in 0.53% of LACT = 1 calvings, in 2.79% of LACT = 2 calvings and in 4.61% LACT = 3 + calvings. Twin calvings (n = 1262; 2.7%) were more likely to require assistance than singleton (OR (95% C.I.): 3.71 (3.21–4.28)). The risk of assisted calvings was higher in cows with >200 previous lactation days open (89% of the total) compared to cows with ≤200 previous lactation days open (11% of the total) (OR (95% C.I.): 1.33 (1.21–1.47)). Cows calving in autumn had lower risk for assisted calving compared to those calving during winter (p < 0.01) and spring (p < 0.01), and with a tendency to a lower risk when compared to the summer season (p = 0.0505).
Dry period length was correlated with CE, as cows with a dry period >70 d had higher risk of assisted calving compared to cows with a 44–70 d dry period (OR (95% C.I.): 1.26 (1.15–1.38)). A long (>28 d) close-up period was associated with greater risk for assistance at calving compared to short (<15 d) close-up period; p < 0.05) or with 15–28 d close-up period (p < 0.01).

3.3. Associations between CE and Survival, Fertility and Milk Production

Multiparous cows with assisted calving had a higher risk of being culled in the first 30 days after calving; the risk was even higher when cows were primiparous. Pregnancy risk within the first 150 DIM was reduced in cows with assistance at calving compared to those not requiring assistance. CE was also associated with 60-d cumulative milk yield and estimated 305-d milk yield both in primiparous and multiparous cows. Data on risk ratios for the association between CE and survival and fertility in primiparous and multiparous cows are reported in Table 4. Estimated least squares mean regarding the associations between CE and milk production in primiparous and multiparous cows are reported in Table 5.

4. Discussion

The overall prevalence of assisted calvings in this study was 20.5%, much higher than other data reported on Italian herds [2,18]. Cow breed/attitude and definition criteria for assisted calvings are key factors to consider. The study by Carnier et al. [2] was focused on Piedmontese cows; breeds and attitude are recognized as influencing factor for dystocia, so that when attitude is considered, the prevalence of dystocia is higher in dairy cows than in beef cattle [18]. Inclusion criteria, definition, and dystocia scoring vary greatly among studies, and may be partially responsible for the different prevalence of assisted calvings found in the present study compared to previous studies in Holstein cows [17,18,23]. De Amicis et al. [18] reported a dystocia prevalence of 6.2% in Holstein cows, but only true cases of dystocia were included. In the study by Atashi et al. [17], calvings presenting slight problems were classified as unassisted calvings, while in the present study all calvings requiring human intervention, albeit slight, were considered as assisted. This grading method aimed to avoid the scattering of data; moreover, it also allowed the registering of the prevalence of calvings that needed any type of assistance, although not necessarily resulting in dystocia, and it is therefore, to the best of our knowledge, the first report of CE in the Italian Holstein breed. A higher prevalence of assisted calvings was recorded by other authors in population studies in which Holstein Friesian represented the vast majority (>95%) [24] or the only breed included [25].
At the herd level, dystocia rates usually follow a positively skewed distribution [10] with a substantial proportion of herds having a low prevalence and a small proportion of herds with a high prevalence. The present data confirmed this distribution for CE (see Figure 1), with calving assistance herd prevalence ranging from 0.8% to 78.3%, underlying the importance of herd management in CE control. This is confirmed by the increasing prevalence of assisted calvings found with the increasing number of calvings/herd/year; it may be assumed that timeliness and procedures implemented by the herd technical staff in calvings surveillance differ from smaller to larger herds. Therefore, specific training of technical staff by veterinarians and animal specialists would be desirable in order to improve calving management.
The AFC did not affect CE in the present study, and this is in contrast with previous studies. Atashi et al. [26] found that, compared to heifers calving at 23 to 26 months of age, both increasing and decreasing AFC were associated with increased risk of dystocia. Again, differences in the criteria used for definition of AFC classes may be the reason for different results. Moreover, gestation length in heifers is curvilinear [27], giving rise to a shorter gestation in both young (20.3 < AFC < 22 months) and old animals (AFC ≥ 25.5 months) compared with the intermediate-age group (22 < AFC < 25.5 months), which further contributes to the lower birth weight of calves born to relatively young and old first-parity dams. The incidence of dystocia is also affected by age in a curvilinear manner, with young and older heifers being more affected [28,29]; higher calving difficulties in very young and older heifers are possibly due to immaturity of the young dams or to the excessive fat deposition in the pelvis of old heifers, respectively [30]. In the present study, a possible AFC effect on CE might therefore be reversed by the use of female sex-sorted semen in almost all heifers, which gave birth to higher number of females; since female calves are lighter than male calves at birth [31,32,33], the importance of AFC within CE evaluation in the present study may have been mitigated. Moreover, growth rate and body development in heifers is not only correlated with age, but also with genetics, nutrition and health [34].
A parity effect on CE was present, but in disagreement with previous studies, as we found higher risk of assisted calvings in LACT = 2 and LACT = 3+ cows compared to LACT = 1, with LACT = 3+ cows accounting for the majority of calving difficulties. Associations between parity and calving difficulties in the literature is reported, instead, as a decreasing percentage of dystocia with an increasing parity of the cow [24,35,36], and with the highest probability of difficult calving in first parity cows [36]. A possible explanation may lie within the concept that calf gender and dam parity interact with CE affecting stillbirth [24]. Thompson et al. [37] in fact, reported a different association between calf size and stillbirths for primiparous and multiparous cows. According to these authors, large calves had greater mortality when delivered by first parity cows, and small calves had greater mortality when delivered by cows with parities greater than 1; size of the birth canal is less restrictive in later parities, thus giving preference to larger, better-developed calves, which would be at greater risk in primiparous cows. In most of the herds enrolled in the present study, heifers were inseminated using mostly female selected sex-sorted semen, as it can be inferred from the female/male ratio in calves born from primiparous cows (70.4% females vs 29.6% males). When exploring the association between calf sex and CE in the present study, cows calving bull calves were found to be at greater risk for assisted calving, in agreement with previous literature [23,29,38]. Consequently, the high percentage of female calves in primiparous dams possibly influenced CE, reducing the need for assistance at calving, especially in comparison with multiparous cows in which sex ratios of calves were balanced (51% female calves in LACT = 2) or with more males (46% female calves in LACT = 3+). Also, Meyer et al. [35] found that when assistance was needed at birth, the dystocia affected the calves of multiparous cows more than the calves of primiparous cows. Finally, across Italian herds it is a common practice to inseminate older cows using beef bull semen, which could deliver larger calves compared to dairy bull semen. Unfortunately, this information was not available for the present study; although a weak correlation between sire breeding value for CE and birth-weight of the calves was found [27], it was suggested that the uterine environment has a greater influence on size at birth than the paternal genotype [27,39].
The twinning rate detected in the present study (2.7%) was similar to those previously reported [40] (2.5%), [13] (3.11%); twins were more likely to require assistance during calving than singletons, which is in agreement with many studies [13,16,23,38,41,42]. The majority of calving difficulties with twins results from abnormal presentation of one or both fetuses at delivery rather than from large birth weight or physical size [41]. Reducing the untoward consequences of twinning can be achieved by ovulation synchronization protocols [43], periparturient diagnosis of twin pregnancies, (which allows timely administration of obstetrical assistance), and by genetic selection (avoiding selection of dams with multiple ovulations).
Gestation length categories were associated with CE: cows having gestation length >279 days had an increased risk of assisted calvings when compared to gestations ranging 274–279 days. Possibly, this is related to the fact that fetal body weight increases exponentially with gestational age in cattle [44,45], with an average fetal daily weight gain of 0.5 kg in the last week of gestation [32,46]; calves born before term are often smaller than calves at term, and in those cases, calving is also unexpected, so most likely not assisted. Many other factors such as season and genetics may cause variation in gestation length, and fetal oversize may be hypothesized to be a risk factor for those gestations exceeding 279 d. Very short (<260 d) gestations were not considered, thus eliminating those cases in which calving assistance was caused by abortion and fetal mortality, as bovine abortion is defined as the expulsion of a fetus between the completion of differentiation (day 42) and the limit of fetal independent viability (day 260) [46]. Although the risk for assisted calvings in the present study was reduced in short gestations (<274 d) when compared to a gestation length of 274–279 d, calf viability and welfare should also be considered; both short and long gestation have been associated with greater incidence of dystocia and stillbirth compared to average gestation length, due to reduced viability of the newborn or increased calf body weight, respectively [29,35,47]. Intermediate gestation length, namely between 274 and 281 d, optimizes lifetime productivity, CE, incidence of stillbirth and the interval from calving to first service in dams [48]. For the purposes of this study, no investigation on the outcome of the calving was performed, as calving assistance was provided in different ways among the different herds. Many variables that could not be measured in this study could influence the outcome of assisted calvings, including magnitude of traction applied and timing of intervention.
As many others, the present study reported a seasonal effect on CE in Holstein dairy cattle. In some investigations, a decreasing risk of dystocia was found in summer compared with colder seasons [29,49]. Cold weather during the last trimester has been associated with increased dry matter and energy intake, increased thyroid hormone concentration, increased blood and nutrient flow to the uterus and increased gestation length and reduced plasma estradiol concentrations, leading to increased birthweight and dystocia [29,50,51]. Consistently, we found a higher risk for calving assistance during winter and spring compared to autumn, similar to [13].
The higher risk for assisted calvings in cows with long dry periods (>70 d) supports previous findings [52], and it is probably due to the relationship between dry period length and cow body condition score (BCS) at calving. Longer dry and close-up periods lead to a BCS rise, with a body fat deposition along the birth canal that may increase calving difficulties.
This study presented an overall increased 30 DIM culling risk for cows with assisted calvings, in agreement with previous studies [38,53]. It is true that the timing of diagnosis or withdrawal periods for disease treatments can bias the moment of culling and influence survival analysis in early lactation [54]; nevertheless, cullings due to poor lactation performances or infertility generally occur later during lactation, while cullings in early lactation depend mostly upon calving problems, transition diseases or metabolic disorders. The general effect of CE on 30 DIM culling risk was more pronounced in primiparous cows (1.68 RR in primiparous cows compared to 1.37 RR in multiparous cows), and this is in agreement with a previous investigation [55], although the definition of CE scores differs.
Fertility was also correlated with CE in the present study, as suggested by others [5,15,28,37,56,57]. Although the definition of CE scores differ among studies in several measures of fertility—days open, calving interval, number of services per conception, and days to first service—an increase in units following a difficult calving is concluded throughout. Difficulties at calving reduced 150 DIM pregnancy risk in this study, consistent with the literature. Cows experiencing difficulty at parturition are more likely to suffer from postpartum diseases such as metritis, retained placenta and milk fever; these health and metabolic disturbances delay ovarian recovery and uterine involution, impairing subsequent fertility [58].
The negative effect of calving assistance on milk production in the present study was evidenced both by the effective measurement of cumulative 60-d milk yield and by the predicted 305-d production. As reported by Atashi et al. [26], the repeated measurements for monthly test-day milk samples better estimates the milk loss compared to a summary measure such as 305-d milk yield, also because the first is a “real” estimation and not predicted data. Moreover, the same authors [26] suggested that dystocia was associated with decreased 305-d lactation performance mostly in early lactation. Nonetheless, cumulative 60-d milk yield data, despite the bias due to the exclusion of cows culled before 60 DIM, might be a useful metric to define early lactation milk production. In the present study, both milk production metrics pointed out the negative effect of assisted calvings on lactation performance. These results indicated that, although restrained in quantity, losses in milk production associated with assisted calvings are prolonged over time, and they are therefore biologically important. Although a general negative impact of dystocia on lactation performances has been established in the literature, the reports on the relationship between calving difficulties and lactation performances at different parities and different stages of lactation are not consistent [5,16,57,59]. Once again, different definitions of CE score and different statistical methods used to estimate milk loss could be the main sources of these discrepancies.

5. Conclusions

The present study focuses on CE in Italian Holstein cow herds, and to our knowledge, it is the first study in this regard. This study contributes to identifying specific factors associated with CE, showing that calving difficulties are associated with worsening of both survival and fertility and milk production performances; moreover, it promotes attention on calving management at the herd level and on herd staff training and education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P. and M.G.; methodology, M.P. and M.G.; software, M.G.; validation, M.G. and P.A.; formal analysis, M.G. and G.S.; investigation, M.P.; resources, M.G., P.A. and A.B.; data curation, M.G. and G.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.; writing—review and editing, M.P., M.G. and P.A.; visualization, M.P. and M.G.; supervision, M.P.; project administration, M.P. and M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all farmers involved in the Alta Italia-Elanco Italia collaboration project for making their dairy data available for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brotherstone, S.; Goddard, M. Artificial selection and maintenance of genetic variance in the global dairy cow population. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 1479–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Carnier, P.; Albera, A.; Dal Zotto, R.; Groen, A.F.; Bona, M.; Bittante, G. Genetic parameters for direct and maternal calving ability over parities in Piedmontese cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 2532–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Huxley, J.N.; Whay, H.R. Current attitudes of cattle practitioners to pain and the use of analgesics in cattle. Vet. Rec. 2006, 159, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Philipsson, J.; Foulley, J.L.; Lederer, J.; Liboriussen, T.; Osinga, A. Sire evaluation standards and breeding strategies for limiting dystocia and stillbirth. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1979, 6, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Djemali, M.; Berger, P.J.; Freeman, A.E. Ordered categorical sire evaluation for dystocia in Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 1987, 70, 2374–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Thompson, J.R. Dystocia in Dairy Cattle. Age of Dam, Maternal Considerations, and Relationship with Economic Traits. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Luo, M.F.; Boettcher, P.J.; Schaeffer, L.R.; Dekkers, J.C.M. Estimation of genetic parameters of calving ease in first and second parities of Canadian Holsteins using Bayesian methods. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 74, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hickey, J.M.; Keane, M.G.; Kenny, D.A.; Cromie, A.R.; Amer, P.R.; Veerkamp, R.F. Heterogeneity of genetic parameters for calving difficulty in Holstein heifers in Ireland. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 3900–3908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Meijering, A. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle a review of causes, relations and implications. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1984, 11, 143–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mee, J.F. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: A review. Vet. J. 2008, 176, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lorenz, I.; Mee, J.F.; Earley, B.; More, S.J. Calf health from birth to weaning. I. General aspects of disease prevention. Ir. Vet. J. 2011, 64, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bar-Anan, R.; Heiman, M.; Ron, M.; Weller, J.I. Comparison of proven sires from five Holstein–Friesian strains in high-yield Israeli dairy herds. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1987, 17, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McClintock, S.E. A Genetic Evaluation of Dystocia in Australian Holstein–Friesian Cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  14. Buckley, F.; O’Sullivan, K.; Mee, J.F.; Evans, R.D.; Dillon, P. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight, and reproduction in spring-calved Holstein Friesians. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 2308–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dematawewa, C.M.B.; Berger, P.J. Effect of dystocia on yield, fertility, and cow losses and an economic evaluation of dystocia scores for Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Berry, D.P.; Lee, J.M.; Macdonald, K.A.; Roche, J.R. Body condition score and body weight effects on dystocia and stillbirths and consequent effects on postcalving performance. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4201–4211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Atashi, H.; Abdolmohammadi, A.R.; Asaad, A.; Akhlaghi, A.; Dadpasand, M.; Ahangari, Y.J. Using an incomplete gamma function to quantify the effect of dystocia on the lactation performance of Holstein dairy cows in Iran. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 2718–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. De Amicis, I.; Veronesi, M.C.; Robbe, D.; Gloria, A.; Carluccio, A. Prevalence, causes, resolution and consequences of bovine dystocia in Italy. Theriogenology 2018, 107, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pursley, J.R.; Wiltbank, M.C.; Stevenson, J.S.; Ottobre, J.S.; Garverick, H.A.; Anderson, L.L. Pregnancy rates per artificial insemination for cows and heifers inseminated at a synchronized ovulation or synchronized estrus. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pursley, J.R.; Kosorok, M.R.; Wiltbank, M.C. Reproductive management of lactating dairy cows using synchronization of ovulation. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Souza, A.H.; Ayres, H.; Ferreira, R.M.; Wiltbank, M.C. A new presynchronization system (Double-Ovsynch) increases fertility at first postpartum timed AI in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 2008, 70, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. ICAR (International Committee for Animal Recording). Guidelines for Dairy Cattle Milk Recording. 2017. Available online: https://www.icar.org/Guidelines/02-Overview-Cattle-Milk-Recording.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2021).
  23. Gaafar, H.M.; Shamiah, S.M.; El-Hamd, M.A.; Shitta, A.A.; El-Din, M.A. Dystocia in Friesian cows and its effects on postpartum reproductive performance and milk production. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lombard, J.E.; Garry, F.B.; Tomlinson, S.M.; Garber, L.P. Impacts of dystocia on health and survival of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1751–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kovács, L.; Kézér, F.L.; Ruff, F.; Szenci, O. Rumination time and reticuloruminal temperature as possible predictors of dystocia in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 1568–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Atashi, H.; Asaadi, A.; Hostens, M. Association between age at first calving and lactation performance, lactation curve, calving interval, calf birth weight, and dystocia in Holstein dairy cows. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0244825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kamal, M.M.; Van Eetvelde, M.; Depreester, E.; Hostens, M.; Vandaele, L.; Opsomer, G. Age at calving in heifers and level of milk production during gestation in cows are associated with the birth size of Holstein calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 5448–5458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Simerl, N.A.; Wilcox, C.J.; Thatcher, W.W.; Martin, F.G. Prepartum and peripartum reproductive performance of dairy heifers freshening at young ages. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 1724–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Johanson, J.M.; Berger, P.J. Birth weight as a predictor of calving ease and perinatal mortality in Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 3745–3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Raboisson, D.; Delor, F.; Cahuzac, E.; Gendre, C.; Sans, P.; Allaire, G. Perinatal, neonatal, and rearing period mortality of dairy calves and replacement heifers in France. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2913–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kertz, A.F.; Reutzel, L.F.; Barton, B.A.; Ely, R.L. Body weight, body condition score, and wither height of prepartum Holstein cows and birth weight and sex of calves by parity: A database and summary. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 525–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dhakal, K.; Maltecca, C.; Cassady, J.P.; Baloche, G.; Williams, C.M.; Washburn, S.P. Calf birth weight, gestation length, calving ease, and neonatal calf mortality in Holstein, Jersey, and crossbred cows in a pasture system. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 690–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gutiérrez, V.; Espasandin, A.C.; Astessiano, A.L.; Casal, A.; López-Mazz, C.; Carriquiry, M. Calf foetal and early life nutrition on grazing conditions: Metabolic and endocrine profiles and body composition during the growing phase. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013, 97, 720–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lohakare, J.D.; Südekum, K.H.; Pattanaik, A.K. Nutrition-induced Changes of Growth from Birth to First Calving and Its Impact on Mammary Development and First-lactation Milk Yield in Dairy Heifers: A Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 1338–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Meyer, C.L.; Berger, P.J.; Koehler, K.J.; Thompson, J.R.; Sattler, C.G. Phenotypic trends in incidence of stillbirth for Holsteins in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hohnholz, T.; Volkmann, N.; Gillandt, K.; Waßmuth, R.; Kemper, N. Risk Factors for Dystocia and Perinatal Mortality in Extensively Kept Angus Suckler Cows in Germany. Agriculture 2019, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Thompson, J.R.; Pollak, E.J.; Pelissier, C.L. Interrelationships of parturition problems, production subsequent lactation, reproduction and age at first calving. J. Dairy Sci. 1983, 66, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ettema, J.F.; Santos, J.E.P. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproduction, health, and income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 2730–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Swali, A.; Wathes, D.C. Influence of the dam and sire on size at birth and subsequent growth, milk production and fertility in dairy heifers. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 1173–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Eddy, R.G.; Davies, O.; David, C. An economic assessment of twin births in British dairy herds. Vet. Res. 1991, 129, 526–529. [Google Scholar]
  41. Echternkamp, S.E.; Gregory, K.E. Effects of twinning on gestation length, retained placenta, and dystocia. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 77, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kirkpatrick, B.W. Management of twinning cow herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 80, E14–E18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cabrera, V.E.; Fricke, P.M. Economics of Twin Pregnancies in Dairy Cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Norman, H.D.; Wright, J.R.; Kuhn, M.T.; Hubbard, S.M.; Cole, J.B.; Van Raden, P.M. Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 2259–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Prior, R.L.; Laster, D.B. Development of the bovine fetus. J. Anim. Sci. 1979, 48, 1546–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hubbert, W.T. Recommendations for standardising bovine reproductive terms. Cornell Vet. 1972, 62, 216–237. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vieira-Neto, A.; Galvão, K.N.; Thatcher, W.W.; Santos, J.E.P. Association among gestation length and health, production, and reproduction in Holstein cows and implications for their offspring. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 3166–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Norman, H.D.; Wright, J.; Miller, R. Potential consequences of selection to change gestation length on performance of Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 1005–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Mee, J.F.; Berry, D.P.; Cromie, A.R. Risk factors for calving assistance and dystocia in pasture-based Holstein-Friesian heifers and cows in Ireland. Vet. Sci. 2011, 187, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Colburn, D.J.; Deutscher, G.H.; Nielsen, M.K.; Adams, D.C. Effects of sire, dam traits, calf traits, and environment on dystocia and subsequent reproduction of two-year-old heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 1452–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. McGuirk, B.J.; Going, I.; Gilmour, A.R. The genetic evaluation of UK Holstein Friesian sires for calving ease and related traits. Anim. Sci. 1999, 68, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Atashi, H.; Zamiri, M.J.; Dadpasand, M. Association between dry period length and lactation performance, lactation curve, calf birth weight, and dystocia in Holstein dairy cows in Iran. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 3632–3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Fodor, I.; Gábor, G.; Lang, Z.; Abonyi-Tóth, Z.; Ózsvári, L. Relationship between reproductive management practices and fertility in primiparous and multiparous dairy cows. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2019, 83, 218–227. [Google Scholar]
  54. Probo, M.; Pascottini, O.B.; LeBlanc, S.; Opsomer, G.; Hostens, M. Association between metabolic diseases and the culling risk of high-yielding dairy cows in a transition management facility using survival and decision tree analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 9419–9429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. De Maturana, E.L.; Ugarte, E.; González-Recio, O. Impact of Calving Ease on Functional Longevity and Herd Amortization Costs in Basque Holsteins Using Survival Analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4451–4457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Erb, H.N.; Smith, R.D.; Oltenacu, P.A.; Guard, C.L.; Hillman, R.B.; Powers, P.A.; Smith, M.C.; White, M.E. Path model of reproductive disorders and performance, milk fever, mastitis, milk yield and culling in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1985, 68, 3337–3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tenhagen, B.A.; Helmbold, A.; Heuwieser, W. Effect of various degrees of dystocia in dairy cattle on calf viability, milk production, fertility and culling. J. Vet. Med. A Physiol. Pathol. Clin. Med. 2007, 54, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Benzaquen, M.E.; Risco, C.A.; Archbald, L.F.; Melendez, P.; Thatcher, M.J.; Thatcher, W.W. Rectal temperature, calving-related factors, and the incidence of puerperal metritis in postpartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 2804–2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Domecq, J.J.; Skidmore, A.L.; Lloyd, J.W.; Kaneene, J.B. Relationships between body condition scores and milk yield in a large dairy herd of high yielding Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 00671 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution of assisted calving prevalence in the 40 Italian Holstein cow herds enrolled in the study. Each column corresponds to a single herd.
Figure 1. Distribution of assisted calving prevalence in the 40 Italian Holstein cow herds enrolled in the study. Each column corresponds to a single herd.
Animals 12 00671 g001
Table
Table 1. Description of statistical model and variables included for each risk factor considered in the study.
Table 1. Description of statistical model and variables included for each risk factor considered in the study.
Risk FactorModel OutcomeModel TypeModel VariablesN
FarmCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Contingency analysisFarm47,672
Number of calvings/herd/year categoriesCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelNumber of calvings/herd/year in categories; parity group; calving year; calving month47,672
Parity groupCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month47,672
Gestation lengthCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month47,672
Gestation length in categoriesCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length categories; calving year; calving month47,672
Age at first calving categories
(primiparous cows)		Calving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; age at first calving categories; gestation length categories; calving year; calving month17,159
Previous lactation days open categoriesCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; previous lactation days open categories; calving year; calving month30,500
Days dry categoriesCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; days dry categoriesgestation length in days30,442
Days in close-up categoriesCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calves number; calving year; calving month20,220
Calves number
(twin/singleton)		Calving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple Logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calves number(twin/singleton); calving year; calving month47,567
Calf sex
(singleton calvings)		Calving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calf sex (singleton calvings); calving year; calving month46,305
Calving seasonCalving ease
(Assisted/Unassisted)		Multiple logistic regression modelFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; calving season47,672
Table
Table 2. Statistical models and variables included for the analysis of the association between calving ease and survival, fertility and milk production.
Table 2. Statistical models and variables included for the analysis of the association between calving ease and survival, fertility and milk production.
Model OutcomeOutcome VariableModel TypeModel VariablesN
Culling risk in
the first 30 DIM
primiparous cows		Time to cullingCox proportional hazardFarm; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month; calving ease; Age at first calving in months17,159
Culling risk within
the first 30 DIM
multiparous cows		Time to cullingCox proportional hazardFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; previous lactation 305ME milk production; calving ease29,708
Pregnancy risk
within the first 150 DIM
primiparous cows		Time to pregnancyCox proportional hazardFarm; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month; age at first calving in months; calving Ease17,159
Pregnancy risk
within the first 150 DIM
multiparous cows		Time to pregnancyCox proportional hazardFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; previous lactation 305ME milk production; previous Days open categories; calving ease29,975
60 DIM cumulative
milk production (Kg)
primiparous cows		60 DIM cumulative milk production (Kg)Multiple Linear regression Farm; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month; age at first calving in months; calving Ease14,475
60 DIM cumulative
milk production (Kg)
multiparous cows		60 DIM cumulative milk production (Kg)Multiple Linear regression Farm; parity group; gestation length in days; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; previous lactation 305ME milk production; calving Ease24,211
Predicted 305-d
milk production (Kg)
primiparous cows		Projected 305-d milk production (Kg)Multiple Linear regression Farm; gestation length in days; days in milk, calving year; calving month; age at first calving in months; calving Ease15,043
Predicted 305-d
milk production (Kg)
multiparous cows		Projected 305-d milk production (Kg)Multiple Linear regression Farm; parity group; gestation length in days; days in milk; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; previous lactation 305ME milk production; calving ease24,211
Culling risk in the first
30 DIM
primiparous cows		Time to cullingCox proportional hazardFarm; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month; calving ease; age at first calving in months17,159
Culling risk within
the first 30 DIM
multiparous cows		Time to cullingCox proportional hazardFarm; parity group; gestation length in days; days dry categories; calving year; calving month; previous lactation 305ME milk production; calving ease29,708
Pregnancy risk within
the first 150 DIM
primiparous cows		Time to pregnancyCox proportional hazardFarm; gestation length in days; calving year; calving month; age at first calving in months; calving Ease17,159
Table
Table 3. Risk factor associations with calving ease.
Table 3. Risk factor associations with calving ease.
FactorNumber 1Odds Ratio (95% C.I.) 2p-Value
Calvings/herd/year47,672
  <5009815Referent<0.0001
  500–100020,5661.11 (1.04–1.18)
  >100017,2911.42 (1.34–1.52)
Gestation length47,672
  274–279 d21,144Referent<0.0001
  <274 d13,8090.97 (0.91–1.04)
  >279 d12,7191.22 (1.13–1.31)
Parity47,672
  117,159Referent<0.0001
  212,7701.04 (0.97–1.11)
  3+17,7431.29 (1.21–1.37)
Previous lactation days open30,500
  ≤200 d27,036Referent<0.0001
  >200 d34641.33 (1.21–1.47)
Calf number47,567
  Singleton46,305Referent<0.0001
  Twins12623.71 (3.21–4.28)
Calf sex (singleton calvings)46,305
  Female26,109Referent<0.0001
  Male20,1961.39 (1.30–1.48)
Calving season47,672
  Autumn14,216Referent<0.0001
  Summer12,9301.07 (1.00–1.15)
  Winter10,8061.12 (1.05–1.21)
  Spring97201.13 (1.05–1.21)
Dry period length30,442
  44–70 d24,787Referent<0.0001
  <44 d11091.03 (0.85–1.25)
  >70 d45461.26 (1.15–1.38)
Close-up length20,220
  15–28 d12,136Referent<0.0001
  <15 d51860.96 (0.85–1.07)
  >28 d28981.22 (1.08–1.38)
1 Number = number of observations in the dataset; 2 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals for estimated value. Specific risk factors are reported with bold type in the table.
Table
Table 4. Risk ratios and 95% confidence interval for the associations between calving ease and survival and between calving ease and fertility.
Table 4. Risk ratios and 95% confidence interval for the associations between calving ease and survival and between calving ease and fertility.
ParameterUnassisted CalvingAssisted CalvingCISignificance
30 DIM Culling Risk
Primiparous cowsN = 13824N = 3335
ReferrentRR 1.681.31–2.14p < 0.0001
Multiparous cowsN = 23345N = 6363
ReferrentRR 1.371.21–1.54p < 0.0001
150 DIM Pregnancy risk
Primiparous cowsN = 13824N = 3335
ReferrentRR 0.940.88–0.99p = 0.03
Multiparous cowsN = 23588N = 6377
ReferrentRR 0.910.86–0.96p = 0.0004
RR: risk ratios; CI: 95% confidence intervals for estimated value; parity groups are reported in Italics.
Table
Table 5. Least square means and 95% confidence intervals for milk production according to calving ease.
Table 5. Least square means and 95% confidence intervals for milk production according to calving ease.
ParameterUnassisted CalvingCIAssisted CalvingCISignificance
Cumulative 60-d
milk yield-LSM (Kg)
Primiparous cowsN = 1854.31846.9–1861.6N = 1833.81818.8–1848.7p = 0.01
Multiparous cowsN = 2626.42619.6–2633.3N = 2591.32577.9–2604.7p < 0.0001
Predicted 305-d
milk yield-LSM (Kg)
Primiparous cowsN = 9633.59603.9–9663.0N = 9557.79497.7–9617.8p = 0.02
Multiparous cowsN = 11,297.611,427.6–11,476.1N = 11,237.111,341.6–11,435.1p = 0.02
LSM: least square mean; CI: 95% confidence intervals for estimated value; N = number of observations in the dataset; parity groups are reported in Italics.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Probo, M.; Guadagnini, M.; Sala, G.; Amodeo, P.; Bolli, A. Calving Ease Risk Factors and Subsequent Survival, Fertility and Milk Production in Italian Holstein Cows. Animals 2022, 12, 671. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060671

AMA Style

Probo M, Guadagnini M, Sala G, Amodeo P, Bolli A. Calving Ease Risk Factors and Subsequent Survival, Fertility and Milk Production in Italian Holstein Cows. Animals. 2022; 12(6):671. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060671

Chicago/Turabian Style

Probo, Monica, Marcello Guadagnini, Giulia Sala, Paola Amodeo, and Agostino Bolli. 2022. "Calving Ease Risk Factors and Subsequent Survival, Fertility and Milk Production in Italian Holstein Cows" Animals 12, no. 6: 671. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060671

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop