Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:17:58.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of high and low nutritional planes on the oestrous cycle and conception rate of heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Joubert
D. M. Joubert
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge and Agricultural Research Institute, University of Pretoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. During the course of investigations on the influence of High- and Low-nutritional planes on the growth, reproduction and production of heifers, sexual activity was studied by recording oestrus data. A total of 239 observations were recorded for fourteen maiden heifers for each nutritional plane; 161 for the High-plane individuals and 78 for those on the Low plane. The investigation included four breeds, viz. Beef Shorthorn, Afrikaner, Friesian and Jersey.

2. The average length of the dioestrous cycle was 20·16 days for the High-plane animals, and 20·83 days for their Low-plane counterparts, the difference of 0·67 days not being statistically significant. Breed differences were not very marked, but a tendency was revealed for the Friesians of both planes to have slightly longer cycles on an average than any other breed studied.

3. The modal length of the cycle for both groups was found to be 19 days, with 95·6% of the cycles falling within the normal range of 17 to 23 days. Cycles exceeding 33 days in length were, however, excluded from these calculations.

4. A tendency was revealed for the initial postpubertal cycles to be longer on an average than what is usually considered the normal length. Although the High-plane heifers settled down to a regular rhythm sooner, observations showed that differences existing between individual animals is probably of greater significance in this regard than any other factor.

5. Whereas the majority of the High-plane heifers reached puberty during winter, 85·7% of the Lowplane heifers came on heat for the first time in summer. It is suggested that with the approach of favourable nutritional conditions, animals in a low condition first restore depleted body tissues before the sexual cycle returns to normal activity.

6. A slight tendency was noticed for cycle length to vary with the season in the case of the High-plane animals, longer cycles being recorded in summer than in winter. On the Low plane, however, the heifers concerned invariably experienced an anoestrous condition during winter, lasting anything up to 218 days. Only after they regained the losses in live weight, was sexual activity restored as previously pointed out.

7. Sexual activity was shown to be greatest in late summer with little variation over the remainder of the year under normal conditions of nutrition and management, while in the Low-plane individuals it fluctuated from complete inactivity in midwinter to a peak in summer.

8. Post-partum oestrus was considerably delayed by lactation in the beef animals. The High plane heifers came on heat only after weaning their calves while the Low-plane individuals required nearly a year in addition to regain depleted body reserves before sexual activity was restored. The Low-plane dairy heifers showed a longer post-partum anoestrous period also, the difference between the two groups being 20·77 days.

9. The results for the number of services required per conception demonstrated that the Low-nutritional plane caused no detrimental influence on this factor. In fact, the difference existing between the two groups studied was in favour of the Low plane animals. This is in agreement with Asdell's (1952) findings. It was shown that season had no effect on the results obtained.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , December 1954 , pp. 164 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Anderson, J. (1936). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 4, 186.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1952). Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Physiol. Path. Anim. Prod. Art. Insem. p. 7.Google Scholar
Asdell, S. A., De Alba, J. & Roberts, S. J. (1949). Cornell Vet. 39, 389.Google Scholar
Bekker, J. G. (1932). Rep. Dir. Vet. Set. Union S. Afr. 18, 733.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, P., Hammond, J. Jun. & Day, F. T. (1941). Vet. Rec. 53, 450.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1939). Fmg S. Afr. 14, 230.Google Scholar
Boyd, W. L. (1934). Cornell Vet. 24, 139. (Quoted by Anderson (1936).)Google Scholar
Campbell, R. C. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. B. & Casida, L. B. (1934). Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 57.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. B. & Casida, L. E. (1937). J. Agric. Res. 54, 417.Google Scholar
Cupps, P. T. (1943). Thesis, Univ. Cornell. (Quoted by Asdell, et al. (1949).)Google Scholar
Du Toit, P. J. & Bisschop, J. H. R. (1929). Rep. Dir. Vet. Ser. Union S. Afr. 15, 1059.Google Scholar
Ellenberger, H. B. & Lohmann, A. H. (1946). Vermont Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 533.Google Scholar
Guilbert, H. R. & Goss, H. (1932). J. Nutr. 5, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilbert, H. R. & Hart, G. H. (1930). Hilgardia, 5, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1927). The Physiology of Reproduction in the Cow. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Jun. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 79.Google Scholar
Hofstad, M. S. (1941). Cornell Vet. 31, 379.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirillov, V. (1944). Sovhoz. Proisvod. no. 12, 34. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 13, 148.)Google Scholar
Lasely, J. F. & Bogart, R. (1943). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 376.Google Scholar
Loeb, L. (1917). Biol. Bull. Woods Hole, no. 33.Google Scholar
Long, J. A. & Evans, H. M. (1922). Mem. Univ. Calif. 6, 46.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1922). Physiology of Reproduction. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Olds, D. & Seath, D. M. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opperman, J. G. S. (1949). B.Sc. (Agric.) Thesis, Univ. Pretoria.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Bisschop, J. H. R. & Adelaar, T. F. (1941). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 16, 213.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Roux, L. L. & Van Aswegen, W. G. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 12, 233.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Roux, L. L., Van Aswegen, W. G. & De Lange, M. (1948). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 23, 269.Google Scholar
Roux, L. L. (1936). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 6, 465.Google Scholar
Shannon, F. P., Salisbury, G. W. & VanDemark, N. L. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanDemark, N. L. & Salisbury, G. W. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar