Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:20:21.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of body condition, food intake and temporary calf separation on the duration of the post-partum anoestrous period and associated LH, FSH and prolactin concentrations in beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. A. Wright ,
S. M. Rhind ,
A. J. F. Russel ,
T. K. Whyte ,
Alison J. McBean  and
S. R. McMillen
I. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
S. M. Rhind
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
A. J. F. Russel
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
T. K. Whyte
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
Alison J. McBean
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
S. R. McMillen
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PY
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to examine factors affecting the length of the post-partum anoestrous period and associated effects on LH, FSH and prolactin. Forty-six cows (24 Hereford × Friesian and 22 Blue-Grey) ranging in body condition score at calving from 1·50 to 2·75 were used. They were individually fed chopped barley straw and concentrate at either 50 (low) or 91 (high) MJ metabolizable energy per day from calving. At 34 days post partum half the cows were separated from their calves for 48 h. The duration of the post-partum anoestrous period was estimated from progesterone concentrations in thrice weekly blood samples. Blood samples were collected every 20 min for 10 h periods immediately prior to calf separation, during the last 10 h of calf separation and 1 week later. All samples were analysed for LH, and every third sample was analysed for FSH and prolactin.

There were no significant effects of genotype, feeding level or calf separation on the length of the post-partum anoestrous period. There was a negative association between body condition score at calving and the length of the anoestrous period, with each unit increase in body condition score reducing the anoestrous period by 43 (s.e. 20) days. There was some evidence that feeding level affected the number of thin cows (body condition score ≤2·25 at calving) which were still acyclic at the end of the experiment, but not the number of fat cows (body condition score ≥2·5 at calving).

FSH levels were not affected by any of the factors examined. Prolactin concentrations were higher in fatter cows, in cows on the higher level of feeding and in Blue-Grey cows. Prolactin concentrations decreased during the period of calf separation. Genotype and feeding level had no effect on LH concentration or LH pulse frequency. LH pulse frequency was increased (P < 0·05) during the period of calf separation, but there was no effect 1 week later. There was a significant positive relationship between LH puise frequency and body condition score at calving in two of the three sampling periods.

It is suggested that the effect of body condition on the duration of the post-partum anoestrous period i s mediated through effects on LH pulse frequency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 395 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Baird, D. T., Swanston, I. A. and McNeilly, A. S. 1981. Relationships between LH, FSH and prolactin concentration and the secretion of androgens and oestrogens by the preovulatory follicle in the ewe. Biology of Reproduction 24: 1013–1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, T. D. and Hafs, H. D. 1980. Suckling and four times daily milking: influence on ovulation, estrus and serum luteinizing hormone, glucocorticoids and prolactin in post-partum Holsteins. Journal of Animal Science 50: 919–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Convey, E. M., Tucker, H. A. and Short, R. E. 1983. Acute effect of suckling on gonadotropin, prolactin and glucocorticoid concentrations in serum of intact and ovariectomized beef cows. Theriogenology 20: 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diskin, M. G. and Sreenan, J. M. 1980. Fertilization and embryonic mortality rates in beef heifers after artificial insemination. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 59: 463–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, R. T. Jr, Smith, M. F., Garverick, H. A. and Foley, 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
Echternkamp, S. E., Ferrell, C. L. and Rone, J. D. 1982. Influence of pre- and post-partum nutrition on LH secretion in suckled postpartum beef heifers. Theriogenology 18: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forrest, D. W., Fleecer, J. L., Long, C. R., Sorensen, A. M. and Harms, P. G. 1980. Effect of exogenous prolactin on peripheral luteinizing hormone levels in ovariectomized cows. Biology of Reproduction 22: 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holness, D. H., Hopley, J. D. H. and Hale, D. H. 1978. The effects of plane of nutrition, live weight, temporary weaning and breed on the occurrence of oestrus in beef cows during the post-partum period. Animal Production 26: 47–54.Google Scholar
Lamming, G. E., Wathes, D. C. and Peters, A. R. 1981. Endocrine patterns of the post-partum cow. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplement 30, pp. 155–170.Google Scholar
Laster, D. B., Glimp, H. A. and Gregory, K. E. 1973. Effects of early weaning on post-partum reproduction of cows. Journal of Animal Science 36: 734–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somervuille, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Rev. ed. Bulletin,-East of Scotland College of Agriculture, No. 6.Google Scholar
McNeilly, A. S. and Andrews, P. 1974. Purification and characterisation of caprine prolactin. Journal of Endocrinology 60: 359–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeilly, J. R., McNeilly, A. S., Walton, J. S. and Cunningham, F. J. 1976. Development and application of a heterologous radioimmunoassay for ovine follicle-stimulating hormone. Journal of Endocrinology 70: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martlnsz, N. D., Baird, D. T., Scaramuzzi, R. J. and Van look, P. F. A. 1976. Androstenedione and the control of luteinizing hormone in the ewe during anoestrus. Journal of Endocrinology 69: 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1986. Beef Yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Peters, A. R. and Lamming, G. E. 1986. Regulation of ovarian function in the postpartum cow: an endocrine model. Veterinary Record 118: 236–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, A. R. and Riley, G. M. 1982. Milk progesterone profiles and factors affecting post partum ovarian activity in beef cows. Animal Production 34: 145–153.Google Scholar
Rhind, S. M., Doney, J. M., Gunn, R. G. and Leslie, I. D. 1984. Effects of body condition and environmental stress on ovulation rate, embryo survival, and associated plasma follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, prolactin and progesterone profiles in Scottish Blackface ewes. Animal Production 38: 201–209.Google Scholar
Rhind, S. M., Leslie, I. D., Gunn, R. G. and Doney, J. M. 1985. Plasma FSH, LH, prolactin and progesterone profiles of Cheviot ewes with different levels of intake before and after mating, and associated effects on reproductive performance. Animal Reproduction Science 8: 301–313.CrossRefGoogle 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
Schallenberger, E., Schams, D. and Zottmeier, K. 1978. Response of lutropin (LH) and follitropin (FSH) o t the administration of gonadoliberin (GnRH) in pregnant and post-partum cattle including experiments with prolactin suppression. Theriogenology 10: 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw-Hill, London.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
Williams, G. L. and Ray, D. E. 1980. Hormonal and reproductive profiles of early postpartum beef heifers after prolactin suppression or steriod-induced luteal function. Journal of Animal Science 50: 906–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltbank, J. N. and Cook, A. C. 1958. The comparative reproductive performance of nursed cows and milked cows. Journal of Animal Science 17: 640–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltbank, J. N., Rowden, W. W., Ingalls, J. E., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1962. Effect of energy level on reproductive phenomena of mature Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 21: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1984. Partition of fat, body composition and body condition score in mature cows. Animal Production 38: 23–32.Google Scholar