Breeding Soundness Inspection and Production Features of Bullocks under Ecological Conditions in Free State Region, South Africa



Abstract Views
203

Downloads
229

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Oct 5, 2021
Published Jan 19, 2022
10.24018/ejfood.2022.4.1.391

Abstract viewed = 203 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Assessing the fertility of bullocks preceding to use as breeding animals make apparent economic if it were possible. Fertility is not possible predicted by means of a breeding soundness evaluation (BSE), but by the application of minimum standards to a set of accepted procedures, which supports informed decision makers to the breeding potential of the bullock. An bullocks found to satisfy these criteria in Central Performance Testing (CPT) known as Phase C, is reckoned to be breeding sound (BS). Furthermore, breeding success depends on the reproductive performance of both the cow and the bull. Breeding bull is likely to service a large number of heifers or cows in planned breeding season. The efficiency of a bullock can be based on the average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) but poor breeding sound evaluation can be regarded as infertile. Bull breeding soundness evaluations (BSEs) are significant economic management of beef herd management and depends on adequate semen quality, physical soundness and serving capacity. Furthermore, assessment of scrotal circumference (SC), libido, testicular measurement and semen parameters often not done during a routine breeding soundness examination. The aim of this study was to depict using BSE whether bullocks would be fertile under Phase C. The relationship of BSE and production characteristics in central performance testing is challenging to identify fertility in bullocks within 112 given days of CPT. This study investigated performance data extracted from Integrated Registration and Genetic Information System (Intergis) managed by Agricultural Research Council Glen Bull Testing Centre. There were three breeds investigated, namely, Simmentaler, Santa Gertrudis and Limousin for the period of 2007 to 2017, were analysed to determine the dominance and importance of factors affecting breeding soundness classification.

Keywords: bullocks, breeding soundness, environmental conditions. Reproductive performance

References

  1. Wiltbank JN, “Maintenance of a high level of reproductive performance in the beef cow herd,” Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract , vol. 5, pp. 41–49, 1983.
     Google Scholar
  2. J. P. Kastelic, “Male involvement in fertility and factors affecting semen quality in bulls,” Animal Frontiers, vol. 3, no. 4, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.2527/af.2013-0029.
     Google Scholar
  3. J. S. Crichton, A. W. Lishman, and S. F. Lesch, “Failure to Demonstrate a Relationship Between beef bull libido and conception rate,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 27–30, 1987.
     Google Scholar
  4. D. P. Berry and S. C. Ring, “Short communication: Animal-level factors associated with whether a dairy female is mated to a dairy or beef bull,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 103, no. 9, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18179.
     Google Scholar
  5. G. Gebreyesus, M. S. Lund, K. Kupisiewicz, and G. Su, “Genetic parameters of semen quality traits and genetic correlations with service sire nonreturn rate in Nordic Holstein bulls,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 104, no. 9, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20403.
     Google Scholar
  6. Flowers WL, “Sperm characteristics that limit success of fertilization,” Lournal of Animal Science, vol. 91, pp. 3022–3029, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  7. Carroll EJ, Ball L, and Scott JA, “Breeding soundness in bulls — a summary of 10 940 examinations,” J Am Vet Med Assoc, vol. 142, pp. 1105–1111, 1963.
     Google Scholar
  8. J. H. Alexander, “Bull breeding soundness evaluation: A practitioner’s perspective,” Theriogenology, vol. 70, no. 3, Aug. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.05.030.
     Google Scholar
  9. B. M. Alexander, “Reproductive performance of rams that failed breeding soundness evaluation: The need to reconsider the evaluation,” Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 140, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.09.005.
     Google Scholar
  10. Larso JL and Miller DJ, “Can relative spermatozoal galactosy transferase activity be predictive of dairy bull fertility?,” Journal of Dairy Science , vol. 83, pp. 2473–2479, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  11. Williams WW and Savage A, “Methods of determining the reproductive health and fertility of bulls.,” Cornell Vet, vol. 17, pp. 374–385, 1927.
     Google Scholar
  12. G. Fordyce, K. Entwistle, S. Norman, V. Perry, B. Gardiner, and P. Fordyce, “Standardising bull breeding soundness evaluations and reporting in Australia,” Theriogenology, vol. 66, no. 5, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.03.009.
     Google Scholar
  13. K. Whitesell, D. Stefanovski, S. McDonnell, and R. Turner, “Evaluation of the effect of laboratory methods on semen analysis and breeding soundness examination (BSE) classification in stallions,” Theriogenology, vol. 142, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.09.035.
     Google Scholar
  14. Barth AD, Bull Breeding Soundness, Third. Canada: Diplomate of the American College of Theriogenologists, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  15. P. J. Chenoweth and F. J. McPherson, “Bull breeding soundness, semen evaluation and cattle productivity,” Animal Reproduction Science, vol. 169, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.03.001.
     Google Scholar
  16. Elmore R, Bierschwal CJ, Martin CE, and Youngquist RS., “A summary of 1127 breeding soundness examinations in beef bulls.,” Theriogenology, vol. 3, pp. 209–218, 1975.
     Google Scholar
  17. OABS Development (PTY) LTD, “A Study on the potential product development for the commercialization and value add to beef products,” Paarl, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  18. Barth AD and Walder CL, “Factors affecting breeding soundness classification of beef bulls examined at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine,” The Canadian Veterinary Journal, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 274–284, Apr. 2002.
     Google Scholar
  19. P. J. Chenoweth, “Sexual Behavior of the Bull: A Review,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 66, no. 1, Jan. 1983, doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(83)81770-6.
     Google Scholar
  20. J. Felton-Taylor et al., “Effect of breed, age, season and region on sperm morphology in 11,387 bulls submitted to breeding soundness evaluation in Australia,” Theriogenology, vol. 142, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.09.001.
     Google Scholar
  21. R. O. Pinho et al., “Lack of relationship between testicular echotexture and breeding soundness evaluation in adult Nelore bulls,” Livestock Science, vol. 154, no. 1–3, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.03.001.
     Google Scholar
  22. M. Tomlinson, A. Jennings, A. Macrae, and I. Truyers, “The value of trans-scrotal ultrasonography at bull breeding soundness evaluation (BBSE): The relationship between testicular parenchymal pixel intensity and semen quality,” Theriogenology, vol. 89, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.10.020.
     Google Scholar
  23. M. Martinez-Castillero et al., “Genetic parameters for fertility traits assessed in herds divergent in milk energy output in Holstein-Friesian, Brown Swiss, and Simmental cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 103, no. 12, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18934.
     Google Scholar
  24. V. S. Moncur, L. C. Hardie, and C. D. Dechow, “Genetic analysis of daily milk yield variability in Holstein dairy cattle in an experimental herd,” Livestock Science, vol. 244, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104397.
     Google Scholar
  25. B. A. Scott, M. Haile-Mariam, B. G. Cocks, and J. E. Pryce, “How genomic selection has increased rates of genetic gain and inbreeding in the Australian national herd, genomic information nucleus, and bulls,” Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 104, no. 11, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20326.
     Google Scholar
  26. T. M. Englishby, K. L. Moore, D. P. Berry, M. P. Coffey, and G. Banos, “Herd-specific random regression carcass profiles for beef cattle after adjustment for animal genetic merit,” Meat Science, vol. 129, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.03.005.
     Google Scholar
  27. Scholtz MM et al., “Livestock breeding for sustainability to mitigate global warming, with the emphasis on developing countries,” South African Journal of Animal Science, vol. 43, no. 3, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  28. S. O. Borgen and B. Aarset, “Participatory Innovation: Lessons from breeding cooperatives,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 145, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.002.
     Google Scholar
  29. E. R. I. Howarth et al., “Developing and validating attention bias tools for assessing trait and state affect in animals: A worked example with Macaca mulatta,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 234, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105198.
     Google Scholar
  30. Kutz B, “Performance Testing Bulls on the Farm.” 2006.
     Google Scholar
  31. Kunene NW and Fossey A, “A survey on livestock production in some traditional areas of northern kwazulu natal in South Africa,” Livestock reproduction for rural development, 18-8, vol. 17, no. 1, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  32. F. and F. Department of Agriculture, “Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Annual report. Pretoria,” Pretoria, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  33. Munyai FR, “An evaluation of socio-economic and biophysical aspects of small-scale livestock system based on a case study from Limpopo province,” Bloemfontein, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  34. J. V. Yelich, “The Missing Piece of the Fertility Equation? Scrotal circumference effect on female fertility - is it real.” UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  35. M. R. Silva, Pedrosa V. B, Borges-Silva J. C, Eler J. P, Guimarães J. D, and Albuquerque L. G, “Genetic parameters for scrotal circumference, breeding soundness examination and sperm defects in young Nellore bulls,” Journal of Animal sciences, vol. 91, pp. 4611–4616, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  36. G. Mukuahima, “The performance of beef cattle bulls in the Vrede district of Mpumalanga, South Africa,” Pretoria, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  37. E. S. E. Hafez, Principles of animal adaptation. In: Adaptation of Domestic Animals. Philadelphia: Ed. Hafez, E. S. E. Lea and Fabiger, 1968.
     Google Scholar
  38. M. K. Yousef, Principles of bioclimatology and adaptation. In: World animal science. B5. Bioclimatology and adaptation of livestock. Disciplinary approach. E, Johnson, H.D. The Netherlands, 1987.
     Google Scholar
  39. G. Leroy, P. Boettcher, B. Besbes, C. R. Peña, F. Jaffrezic, and R. Baumung, “Food securers or invasive aliens? Trends and consequences of non-native livestock introgression in developing countries,” Global Food Security, vol. 26, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100420.
     Google Scholar
  40. A. Valero, “Mating Interference Due to Introduction of Exotic Species,” in Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, Elsevier, 2019. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.20855-8.
     Google Scholar
  41. P. E. Strydom, “Do indigenous Southern African cattle breeds have the right genetics for commercial production of quality meat?,” Meat Science, vol. 80, no. 1, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.04.017.
     Google Scholar
  42. I. Kohler-Rollefson, “Farm Animal Genetic Resources. Safeguarding national assets for good security and trade. A summary of workshop on farm animal genetic resources held in the Southern African Development Community (SADC),” CTA. Eschborn, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  43. P. McDonald, R. A. Edwards, J. F. D. Greenhalgh, and C. A. Morgan, Animal Nutrition, 6th ed. Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  44. S. M. Scheepers, C. H. Annandale, and E. C. Webb, “Relationship between production characteristics and breeding potential of 25-month old extensively managed Bonsmara bulls,” South African Journal of Animal Science, vol. 40, no. 3, Nov. 2010, doi: 10.4314/sajas.v40i3.1.
     Google Scholar
  45. P. J. Chenoweth, “Evaluation of natural service bulls – The ‘other’ BSE,” The Veterinary Journal, vol. 168, no. 3, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2003.12.005.
     Google Scholar
  46. T. J. Parkinson, “Evaluation of fertility and infertility in natural service bulls,” The Veterinary Journal, vol. 168, no. 3, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2003.10.017.
     Google Scholar
  47. E. H. Hay and A. Roberts, “Genomic evaluation of genotype by prenatal nutritional environment interaction for maternal traits in a composite beef cattle breed,” Livestock Science, vol. 229, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.09.022.
     Google Scholar
  48. W. F. CATES, “Observation on scrotal circumference and its relationship to classification of bulls,” Nebraska, 1975.
     Google Scholar
  49. Barth AD, Cates WF, and Harland RJ, “The effect of amount of body fat and loss of fat on breeding soundness classification of bulls,” Can Vet J, vol. 36, pp. 758–763, 1995.
     Google Scholar
  50. Gibson TA, Vogt DW, and Massey JW, “Associations of scrotal circumference with semen traits in young beef bulls,” Theriogenology, vol. 24, pp. 217–225, 1985.
     Google Scholar
  51. Coulter GH and Kozub GC, “Testicular development, epididymal sperm reserves and seminal quality in two-year-old Hereford and Angus bulls: effects of two levels of dietary energy,” J Anim Sci, vol. 59, pp. 432–440, 1984.
     Google Scholar
  52. Barth AD, “The sequential appearance of sperm abnormalities after scrotal insulation or dexamethasone treatment in bulls.,” Can Vet J, vol. 36, pp. 93–102, 1994.
     Google Scholar
  53. L. Vostry, J. Pribyl, L. Majzlik, H. Krejcova, and Z. Vesela, “Genetic evaluation of growth for efficient Bulls at a performance - Testing Station,” Journal of Agrobiology, vol. 25, pp. 57–60, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  54. M. J. Lillywhite and J. Simonsen, “Understanding Factors That Influence Breeders to Sell Bulls at Performance Tests,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 865–877, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  55. M. F. Liu and M. Makarechian, “Factors influencing growth performance of beef bulls in a test station,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 71, no. 5, May 1993, doi: 10.2527/1993.7151123x.
     Google Scholar
  56. Botsime BD, “Influence of agro-ecological region on selected anthropometrical measurements of Nguni cattle in South Africa,” 2007.
     Google Scholar
  57. M. S. Brown, C. H. Ponce, and R. Pulikanti, “Adaptation of beef cattle to high-concentrate diets: Performance and ruminal metabolism1,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 84, no. suppl_13, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.2527/2006.8413_supplE25x.
     Google Scholar
  58. P. F. Arthur, G. Renand, and D. Krauss, “Genetic and phenotypic relationships among different measures of growth and feed efficiency in young Charolais bulls,” Livestock Production Science, vol. 68, no. 2–3, Mar. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00243-8.
     Google Scholar
  59. Groenewals AP, “Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree,” Pretoria, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  60. T. J. Engelken, “The development of beef breeding bulls,” Theriogenology, vol. 70, no. 3, Aug. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.05.038.
     Google Scholar
  61. J. E. Brown, C. J. Brown, and W. T. Butts, “Evaluating relationships among immature measures of size, shape and performance of beef bulls,” J. Anim. Sci, vol. 36, pp. 1010–1020, 1973.
     Google Scholar