Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:44:36.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of breed, month of parturition and sex of progeny on beef cow fertility using calving interval as a measure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2017

F. M. Titterington ,
F. O. Lively ,
S. Dawson ,
A. W. Gordon  and
S. J. Morrison
F. M. Titterington*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland BT26 6DR, UK
F. O. Lively
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland BT26 6DR, UK
S. Dawson
Affiliation:
Statistical Services, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK
A. W. Gordon
Affiliation:
Statistical Services, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK
S. J. Morrison
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agri-Food Sciences Division, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland BT26 6DR, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate levels of beef cow fertility using calving interval (CI; measured in days) as a measure, and investigate the effects of breed, season, year and progeny gender on CI. The CI data included 273 764 records collected between 1997 and 2012 and included the seven most common breeds (and their crosses) in Northern Ireland (Charolais, Limousin, Belgian Blue, Simmental, Blonde d’Aquitaine, Aberdeen Angus and Hereford), accounting for 94.1% of beef dams recorded. Mean CI for all cows was 395 days, 30 days longer than the optimum 365 days. Charolais and Belgian Blue dams had the longest CI (P<0.05). Cows older than 144 months had a longer CI (P<0.05) compared with cows younger than 144 months. Charolais sires had a shorter subsequent CI of 392 days (P<0.05) compared with the other breeds. Cows calving in June had the shortest subsequent CI (376 days; P<0.05), whereas cows calving in November had the longest subsequent CI (410 days). Progeny gender did not significantly affect CI. This study establishes the level of beef cow fertility using CI as a measure in Northern Ireland is sub optimal and there are opportunities for improvement. Factors identified as influencing CI included dam breed, sire breed and month of parturition. This knowledge can be used to direct breeding programmes and inform knowledge transfer protocol to improve sustainability of beef production.

Keywords

Beef cow fertilitybeef cow reproductioncalving interval
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: Improving the quality and sustainability of beef production , October 2017 , pp. s67 - s71
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdel-Aziz, BE, Ali, TE and Ahmed, FA 2005. A study of some factors affecting the age at first calving and the calving interval of different Sudan Zebu breeds. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 4, 668–675.Google Scholar
Brown, LO, Durham, RM, Cobb, E and Knox, J 1954. An analysis of the components of variance in calving intervals in a range herd of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 13, 511–516.Google Scholar
Brzáková, M, Svitáková, A, Veselá, Z and Čítek, J 2016. Genetic parameters for first calving interval in beef cattle. Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica 19, 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, MJ and Blunn, CT 1952. Some factors affecting gestation length and birth weight of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 11, 34–41.Google Scholar
Burris, MJ and Priode, BM 1958. Effect of calving date on subsequent calving performance. Journal of Animal Science 17, 527–533.Google Scholar
Casas, E, Thallman, RM and Cundiff, LV 2011. Birth and weaning traits in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Angus, Brahman, Boran, Tuli, and Belgian Blue sires. Journal of Animal Science 89, 979–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cundiff, LV, Gregory, KE and Koch, RM 1974. Effects of heterosis on reproduction in Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38, 711–727.Google Scholar
Cushman, R, Allan, M, Thallman, R and Cundiff, L 2007. Characterization of biological types of cattle (Cycle VII): influence of postpartum interval and estrous cycle length on fertility. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2156–2162.Google Scholar
Fiems, L, De Campeneere, S, Van Caelenbergh, W and Boucqué, CV 2001. Relationship between dam and calf characteristics with regard to dystocia in Belgian Blue double-muscled cows. Animal Science 72, 389–394.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, JP, Alvarez, I, Fernandez, I, Royo, LJ, Dı´ez, J and Goyache, F 2002. Genetic relationships between calving date, calving interval, age at first calving and type traits in beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 78, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwazdauskas, F 1985. Effects of climate on reproduction in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Hickson, R, Morris, S, Kenyon, P and Lopez-Villalobos, N 2006. Dystocia in beef heifers: a review of genetic and nutritional influences. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 54, 256–264.Google Scholar
Huerta, AR, Güereca, LP and Lozano, MdlSR 2016. . Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 109, 44–53.Google Scholar
Laster, DB, Glimp, HA, Cundiff, LV and Gregory, KE 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and the effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 36, 695–705.Google Scholar
Lindley, CE, Easley, G, Whatley, J Jr and Chambers, D 1958. A study of the reproductive performance of a purebred Hereford herd. Journal of Animal Science 17, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, CR and Gregory, KE 1974. Heterosis and breed effects in preweaning traits of Angus, Hereford and reciprocal cross calves. Journal of animal science 39, 11–17.Google Scholar
Lowman, B 2012. Cost/day of an extended calving interval. Sheep and Beef News, July, p. 22.Google Scholar
Maas, J 1987. Relationship between nutrition and reproduction in beef cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 3, 633–646.Google Scholar
MacGregor, RG and Casey, NH 1998. Evaluation of calving interval and calving date as measures of reproductive performance in a beef herd. Livestock Production Science 57, 181–191.Google Scholar
Mee, J 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: a review. The Veterinary Journal 176, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, K, Hammond, K, Parnell, PF, Mackinnon, MJ and Sivarajasingam, S 1990. Estimates of heritability and repeatability for reproductive traits in Australian beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 25, 15–30.Google Scholar
Morris, S, Hickson, R, Martin, N and Kenyon, P 2016. Days to calving and intercalving interval in beef and dairy-beef crossbred cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 76, pp. 31–33.Google Scholar
Mujibi, F and Crews, D 2009. Genetic parameters for calving ease, gestation length, and birth weight in Charolais cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2759–2766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olori, VE, Meuwissen, THE and Veerkamp, RF 2002. Calving interval and survival breeding values as measure of cow fertility in a pasture-based production system with seasonal calving. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osoro, K and Wright, IA 1992. The effect of body condition, live weight, breed, age, calf performance, and calving date on reproductive performance of spring-calving beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1661–1666.Google Scholar
Price, T and Wiltbank, J 1978. Predicting dystocia in heifers. Theriogenology 9, 221–249.Google Scholar
Roche, J, Mackey, D and Diskin, M 2000. Reproductive management of postpartum cows. Animal Reproduction Science 60, 703–712.Google Scholar
Short, RE, Bellows, RA, Staigmiller, RB, Berardinelli, JG and Custer, EE 1990. Physiological mechanisms controlling anestrus and infertility in postpartum beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68, 799–816.Google Scholar
Slama, H, Wells, M, Adams, G and Morrison, R 1976. Factors affecting calving interval in dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 59, 1334–1339.Google Scholar
Tapaloaga, P-R, Tapaloaga, D and Al Dulaimi, MKH 2016. Researches regarding the reproduction outline and indices in a beef herd in the south of Romania. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 10, 346–352.Google Scholar
Werth, LA, Azzam, SM and Kinder, JE 1996. Calving intervals in beef cows at 2, 3, and 4 years of age when breeding is not restricted after calving. Journal of Animal Science 74, 593–596.Google Scholar
Wray, N, Quaas, R and Pollak, E 1987. Analysis of gestation length in American Simmental cattle. Journal of Animal Science 65, 970–974.Google Scholar
Yague, G, Goyache, F, Becerra, J, Moreno, C, Sanchez, L and Altarriba, J 2009. Bayesian estimates of genetic parameters for pre-conception traits, gestation length and calving interval in beef cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 114, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaborski, D, Grzesiak, W, Szatkowska, I, Dybus, A, Muszynska, M and Jedrzejczak, M 2009. Factors affecting dystocia in cattle. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 44, 540–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed