Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:57:47.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the effects of 72-hour calf removal and/or bull exposure upon post-partum reproductive performance of angus cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. J. Bonavera ,
G. C. S. Schiersmann ,
R. H. Alberio  and
J. Mestre
J. J. Bonavera
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria, Instituto National de Tecnología Agropecuaria, CC 276, 7620-Balcarce, Argentina
G. C. S. Schiersmann
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria, Instituto National de Tecnología Agropecuaria, CC 276, 7620-Balcarce, Argentina
R. H. Alberio
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria, Instituto National de Tecnología Agropecuaria, CC 276, 7620-Balcarce, Argentina
J. Mestre
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria, Instituto National de Tecnología Agropecuaria, CC 276, 7620-Balcarce, Argentina
Get access

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to determine whether short-term calf removal (SCR) and/or bull exposure (BE) could improve post-partum reproductive performance. The trial was conducted during the spring and early summer when forage availability was optimum. Sixty-four Angus multiparous cows in good body condition were allotted according to a 2 × 2 factorial design involving SCR and BE. At 33 days post partum calves were removed for 72 h from the SCR and SCR + BE groups, and a vasectomized bull was introduced to the BE and SCR + BE groups and remained with the cows until the end of the experiment. Oestrous detection was performed daily based only on the homosexual behaviour of the cows. Cows were bred by natural service by two fertile bulls. Blood samples for progesterone analysis were collected alternatively every 3 and 4 days from 26 to 120 days post partum. There were no significant differences (P > 0·05) among groups in the ovulation, oestrus, and pregnancy rates during the breeding period, in conception rates, nor in the intervals from calving to first ovulation, to first oestrus, and to conception. Under the conditions of this experiment 72 h calf removal and/or bull exposure did not improve post-partum reproductive performance.

Keywords

beef cattlepost partum intervalreproductive performance
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 202 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Alberio, R. H., Butler, H. M., Palma, G., Schiersmann, G., Algorta, D. and Ortiz, A. 1984. Actividad reproductiva y fertilidad luego de un deste temporario en vacas con cria multiparas con diferentes estados corporales. Revista Argentina de Production Animal 4: 555–566.Google Scholar
Alberio, R. H., Schiersmann, G., Carou, N. and Mestre, J. 1987. Effect of a teaser bull on ovarian behavioural activity of suckling beef cows. Animal Reproduction Science 14: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baud, S. R. and Cummings, L. J. 1977. The effect of partial weaning on the rebreeding performance of primiparous Hereford heifers. Theriogenology 8: 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonavera, J. J., Tortonese, D. J., Doray, J. M. and Petraglia, F. 1988. Endocrine response to superovulatory treatment in pre-pubertal beef heifers: its lack of ability to induce puberty. Animal Production 46: 163–167.Google Scholar
Custer, E. E., Berardinelli, J. G., Wehrman, M. E., Adair, R. and Short, R. E. 1988. Postpartum interval to estrus and patterns of luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations in first-calf suckled beef heifers exposed to mature bulls. Journal of Animal Science 66: Suppl. I, pp. 412–413 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Dunn, R. T., Smith, M. F., Garverick, H. A. and Folky, C. W. 1985. Effects of 72 hr calf removal and/ or gonadotropin releasing hormone on luteinizing hormone release and ovarian activity in postpartum beef cows. Theriogenology 23: 767–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, S. 1985. The effects of short term calf removal on pulsatile LH secretion in the postpartum beef cow. Theriogenology 23: 777–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbert, J. J., Contreras, P. and Saelzer, P. 1972. Influence of a teaser bull on puerperium and fertility in dairy cows. 3rd International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, Munich, Vol. 3, pp. 1743–1748.Google Scholar
Foote, R. H. 1975. Estrus detection and estrus detection aids. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 248–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, K., Renfree, M. B., Short, R. V. and Clarke, I. J. 1987. Hypothalamo-pituitary portal blood concentrations of (β-endorphin during suckling in the ewe. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 79: 397–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregg, D. W., Moss, G. E., Hudgens, R. E. and Malven, P. V. 1986. Endogenous opioid modulation of luteinizing hormone and prolactin secretion in postpartum ewes and cows. Journal of Animal Science 63: 838–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habich, G. E., Schiersmann, G. and Ridruejo, E. 1981. Fertilidad de vacas Aberdeen Angus segiin su historia nutricional, estado y cambios de estado durante el entore. Production Animal 7: 373–388.Google Scholar
Laster, D. B., Glimp, H. A. and Gregory, K. E. 1973. Effects of early weaning on postpartum reproduction of cows. Journal of Animal Science 36: 734–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacMillan, K. L., Allison, A. J. and Struthers, G. A. 1979. Some effects of running bulls with suckling cows or heifers during the premating period. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 7: 121–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randel, R. D. 1981. Effect of once-daily suckling on postpartum interval and cow-calf performance of firstcalf Brahman × Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 53: 755–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randel, R. D., Short, R. E. and Bellows, R. A. 1976. Suckling effect on LH and progesterone in beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 42: 267 (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Smith, M. F., Burrell, W. C., Shipp, L. D., Sprott, L. R., Songster, W. N. and Wiltbank, J. N. 1979. Hormone treatments and use of calf removal in postpartum beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 48:1285–1294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troxel, T. R., Kesler, D. J., Noble, R. C. and Carlin, S. E. 1980. Ovulation and reproductive hormones following steroid pretreatment, calf removal and GnRH in postpartum suckled beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 51: 652–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verges, E. B. 1986. Efecto de un destete temporario sobre la reactivacion de los ciclos estrales posparto en dos diferentes condiciones corporales en vacas de cria. Tesis M. Sci. Facullad de Ciencias Agrarias (Balcarce), Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.Google Scholar
Walters, D. L., Short, R. E., Convey, E. M., Staigmiller, R. B., Dunn, T. G. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1982. Pituitary and ovarian function in postpartum beef cows. II. Endocrine changes prior to ovulation in suckled and non-suckled postpartum cows compared to cycling cows. Biology of Reproduction 26: 647–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D. L., Smith, M. F., Harms, P. G. and Wiltbank, J. N. 1982. Effect of steroids and/or 48 h calf removal on serum luteinizing hormone concentrations in anestrous beef cows. Theriogenology 18: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whisnant, C. S., Thompson, F. N., Kiser, T. E. and Barb, C. R. 1986. Effect of naloxone on serum luteinizing hormone, cortisol and prolactin concentrations in anestrous beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1340–1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zalesky, D. D., Day, M. L., Garcia-winder, M., Imakawa, K., Kittock, R. J., D'occhio, M. J. and Kinder, J. E. 1984. Influence of exposure to bulls on reasumption of estrous cycles following parturition in beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 59: 1135–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar