Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:55:35.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance of F1 crossbred dairy cows used for draught: effect of work and diet supplementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

E. Zerbini ,
T. Gemeda ,
R. Franceschini ,
J. Sherington  and
A. G. Wold
E. Zerbini
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
T. Gemeda
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
R. Franceschini
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
J. Sherington
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. G. Wold
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Get access

Abstract

Forty pregnant F1 crossbred cows (20 Holstein-Friesian × Boran and 20 Simmental × Boran) were assigned to a 2 × 2 (work × diet) factorial experiment as follows: supplemented-non-working (SNW), supplemented-working (SW), non-supplemented-non-working (NSNW) and non-supplemented-working (NSW). Working cows pulled sledges 100 days/year (pull = 350 to 450 N, 4 h/day, 4 days/week). Conception and oestrus at fixed times (200 and 365 days post partum) were analysed using linear logistic models. Proportional hazard models were used for analysing ‘failure’ time data such as time to first oestrus or time to conception. Diet supplementation significantly decreased days to first oestrus and days to conception in non-working and working cows. SW cows had similar reproductive performance to NSNW cows. In supplemented cows, work significantly delayed days to conception. However, by 365 days post partum, conception rate was similar for SNW and SW cows. Body condition at calving significantly affected post-partum reproductive ability of non-working and working cows. Natural grass hay alone could not support potential reproductive ability of crossbred cows. Work output of supplemented cows may be associated with longer calving intervals. The economic trade-offs between longer calving intervals and work output should be examined in detail.

Keywords

concentratesconceptioncowsdraught animalsoestrus
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 361 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Agyemang, K., Astatke, A., Anderson, F. M. and Mariam, W. W. 1991. A study on the effects of work on reproductive and productive performance of cross-bred dairy cows in the Ethiopian highlands. Tropical Animal Health and Production 23: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Agricultural Council. 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock. Ruminants. Ruminant subcommittee, CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Bamualim, A., Ffoulkes, D. and Fletcher, I. C. 1987. Preliminary observations on the effect of work on intake, digestibility, growth and ovarian activity of swamp buffalo cows. Draught Animal Power Project, DAP Project Bulletin, No. 3, pp. 6–10. James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.Google Scholar
Collett, D. 1991. Modelling binary data. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correa, M. T., Curtis, C. R., Herb, H. N. and White, M. E. 1988. Effect of calfhood morbidity on age at first calving in New York Holstein Herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 6: 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 34: 187–220.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R. and Oakes, D. 1984. Analysis of survival data. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee, 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. R. and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied logistic regression. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Jainudeen, M. R. 1985. Reproduction in draught animals: does work affect female fertility? In Draught animal power for production. ACIAR proceedings no. 10, pp. 130–133. James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. S., Wegner, T. N. and Ray, D. E. 1987. Effect of elevating serum lipids on luteinizing hormone response to gonadotropin releasing hormone challenge in energy-deficient anestrous heifers. Theriogenology 7: 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalbfleisch, J. D. and Prentice, R. L. 1980. The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Lee, L. A., Ferguson, J. D. and Galligan, D. T. 1989. Effect of disease on days open assessed by survival analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 72:1020–1026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G. 1985. Feeding in relation to suckler cow management and fertility. Veterinary Record 117: 80–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momont, P. A. and Pruitt, R. J. 1989. Effects of body condition on reproductive performance of range beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 67: suppl. no. 2, p. 89 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Nicholson, M. J. and Butterworth, M. H. 1986. A guide to condition scoring of Zebu cattle. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Niekerk, A. van. 1982. The effect of body condition as influenced by winter nutrition, on the reproductive performance of the beef cow. South African Journal of Animal Science 12: 383–387.Google Scholar
Randel, R. D. 1990. Nutrition and postpartum re-breeding in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68: 853–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reh, I. and Host, P. 1985. Beef production from draught cows in small scale farming. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 24: 38–47.Google Scholar
Richards, M. W., Spitzer, J. C. and Warner, M. B. 1986. Effect of varying levels of postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive performance in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 62: 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, L. M. and Randel, R. D. 1984. Postpartum nutrient intake and body condition: effect on pituitary function and onset of estrus in beef cattle, Journal of Animal Science 58: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherington, J. and Tegegne, A. 1991. Use of survival analysis method with cattle reproductive data. Paper presented at the Biometric Society 2nd East and Central African Network Meeting, Harare, Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
Spicer, L. J., Tucker, W. B. and Adams, G. D. 1990. Insulin-like growth factor-I in dairy cows: relationship among energy balance, body condition, ovarian activity, and estrus behaviour. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 929–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topps, J. H. 1977. The relationship between reproduction and undernutrition in beef cattle. World Review of Animal Production 13:43–49.Google Scholar
Wells, P. L., Hopley, J. D. H. and Holness, D. H. 1981. Fertility in the Afrikaner cow. 1. The influence of concentrate supplementation during the post-partum period on ovarian activity and conception. Zimbabwe Journal of Agricultural Research 19:13–21.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J. 1980. Fitting Cox's regression model to survival data using GLIM. Applied Statistics 29: 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winugroho, M. and Situmorang, P. 1989. Nutrient intake, workload and other factors affecting reproduction of draught animals. In draught animal power for rural development. ACIAR proceedings no 27, pp. 186–189. James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.Google Scholar
Wolfenson, D., Flamenbaum, I. and Berman, A. 1988. Hyperthermia and body energy store effects on estrus behavior, conception rate, and corpus luteum function in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 3497–3504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, I. A., Rhind, S. M. and Whyte, T. K. 1992. A note on the effects of pattern of food intake and body condition on the duration of the post-partum anoestrus period and LH profiles in beef cows. Animal Production 54:143–146.Google Scholar