Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T08:26:16.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of body condition at calving and feeding level after calving on LH profiles and the duration of the post-partum anoestrous period in beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

I. A. Wright ,
S. M. Rhind ,
T. K. Whyte  and
A. J. Smith
I. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
S. M. Rhind
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
T. K. Whyte
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
A. J. Smith
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to examine the effects of body condition at calving and feeding level post partum on the duration of the post-partum anoestrous period in beef cows. Forty-seven cows were used in each of 2 years. Cows were fed differentially before calving to achieve two levels of body condition at calving in November and December and were then fed at one of two levels of feeding post partum in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment. At calving, mean body condition scores were 2·85 (F) and 2·23 (T) (P < 0·001) while live weights were 521 kg and 457 kg (P < 0·001) for F and T cows respectively. After calving metabolizable energy intakes were 111 and 118 MJ/day (H) or 56 and 64 MJ/day (L) in years 1 and 2 respectively. The H cows maintained live weight during the first 61 days of lactation while the L cows lost live weight (0·0 v. -1·1 kg/day, P < 0·001). The number of cows still acyclic on 1 May each year was higher (P < 0·01) on the TL treatment (10/24) compared with the other treatment combinations (FH: 2/22; FL: 5/22; TH: 2/24). The effect of level of feeding on the duration of the anoestrous period was significant in the T cows (89 v. 116 days for TH and TL cows respectively; P < 0·01) but not in the F cows (80 v.89 days for the FH and FL cows respectively; P > 0·05). At 3 weeks post partum LH pulse frequency was higher in F than in T cows and tended to be higher in H than in L cows. At 6 and 9 weeks post partum LH pulse frequency was higher in H than L cows. LH pulse amplitude was higher in F than T cows at 3 weeks post partum and tended to be higher at 6 weeks post partum. It is concluded that both body condition at calving and feeding level after calving influence the duration of the post-partum anoestrous period with the effect of feeding level being particularly pronounced in thin cows.

Keywords

anoestrusbeef cowsbody conditionfood intakeLH
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , August 1992 , pp. 41 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

Alexander, R. H. and McGowan, M. 1966. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages — an investigation of the problems associated with continuous large-scale operation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 21: 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I. J. and Cummins, J. T. 1982. The temporal relationship between GnRH and LH secretion in ovariectomised ewes. Endocrinology 111: 1737–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, H. C, Houghton, P. L., Lemanager, R. P., Malven, P. V., Parfet, J. R. and Moss, G. E. 1990. Effect of dietary energy, body condition and calf removal on pituitary gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)and hypothalamic opioids in beef cows. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 7: 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djahanbakhch, O., Swanton, I. A., Corrie, J. E. T. and McNeilly, A. S. 1981. Prediction of ovulation by progesterone. Lancet ii: 1164–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, T. G. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1980. Nutrition and the post-partum interval of the ewe, sow and cow. Journal of Animal Science, Supplement 2, pp. 29–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Echternkamp, S. E., Ferrell, C. L. and Rone, J. D. 1982. Influence of pre- and post-partum nutrition on LH secretion in suckled post-partum beef heifers. Therhgenology 18: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. GENSTAT 5 reference manual. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lovvman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Rev. ed. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, no. 6.Google Scholar
Malven, P. V., Parfet, J. R., Gregg, D. W., Allrich, R. D. and Moss, G. E. 1986. Relationships among concentrations of four opioid neuropeptides and luteinizing hormone- releasing hormone in neural tissue of beef cows following early weaning. Journal of Animal Science 62: 723–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeilly, A. S. and Fraser, H. H. 1987. Effect of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist-induced supression of LH and FSH on follicle growth, and corpus luteum function in the ewe. Journal of Endocrinology 115: 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeilly, A. S., Jonassen, J. A. and Fraser, H. M. 1986. Supression of follicular development after chronic LHRH immunoneutralization in the ewe. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 76: 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Richards, M. W., Spitzer, J. C. and Warner, M. B. 1986. Effects 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., Snopek, R. and Manns, J. G. 1989. Serum concentrations of IGF-I in postpartum beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 67: 2060–2066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, R. E., Bellow, R. A., Staigmiller, R. B., Berardinelli, J. G. and Custer, E. E. 1990. Physiological mechanisms controlling anoestrous and infertility in post-partum beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 68: 799–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops, journal of British Grassland Society 18:104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whisnant, C. S., Riser, T. E., Thompson, F. N. and Hall, J. B. 1985. Effect of nutrition on the LH response to calf removal and GnRH. Theriogenology 24: 565–573.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
Wright, I. A., Rhind, S. M., Russel, A. J. F., Whyte, T. K., McBean, A. J. and McMillen, S. R. 1987. 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. Animal Production 45: 395–402.Google Scholar
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 anoestrous period and LH profiles in beef cows. Animal Production 54: 143–146.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., Rhind, S. M., Whyte, T. K., Smith, A. J., McMillen, S. R. and Prado, R. 1990. Circulating concentrations of LH and FSH and pituitary responsiveness to GnRH in intact and ovariectomized suckled beef cows in two levels of body condition. Animal Production 51: 93–101.Google 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