EFFECTS OF FARMING SYSTEM AND BODY CONDITION SCORE ON FERTILITY PERFORMANCES IN SYNCHRONIZED CATTLE

Article Id: ARCC1203 | Page : 28 - 31
Citation :- EFFECTS OF FARMING SYSTEM AND BODY CONDITION SCORE ON FERTILITY PERFORMANCES IN SYNCHRONIZED CATTLE.Indian Journal Of Animal Research.2010.(44):28 - 31
Syafnir1, N.H. Hashida*, I. Noraida1, T. Normala, Z. Hassan2 and M. Fuad2 nhhpasum@um.edu.my
Address : Centre For Foundation Studies in Science, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Abstract

This study was designed to evaluate the influence of farming system and body condition score
(BCS) on fertility performance in 82 synchronized cattle. The study was conducted between January
2007 to December 2008 in three private farms in Gua Musang, Kelantan. All cattle were subjected to
estrus synchronization with controlled intravaginal drug release (CIDR). On day 8, the cattle were
given 2 mg i.m injection of estradiol benzoate (EB), 24 hours after CIDR removal. Twenty four hour
after EB injection (Day 9), a single insemination of frozen-thawed semen was carried out to each of
the synchronized cattle using rectovaginal method. Pregnancy diagnosis was carried out on day 60
post-insemination using rectal palpation. The mean of body condition score (BCS) and percentage
of pregnant cattle were significantly lower for integrated farm (3.42 ± 0.51 and 37.0±11.0%,
respectively) as compared to intensive and semi-intensive farms. Present result showed that BCS
affect the rate of pregnancy in synchronized cattle. There was no significantly different in the response
of BCS to estrus. However, the highest BCS (6) gave significantly higher percentage of regnancy
(73.0±12.0%) as compared to the lower BCS (3 and 4-5). Based on the present result, percentage of
pregnancy had declined in association with body condition score which was related to farming
system.

Keywords

Farming system Body condition score Fertility performance Cattle

References

  1. Ambrose, J.D. et al. (1999) J Dairy Sci. 82: 2369-2376.
  2. Beever, D.E. et al. (2001) In: British Society of Animal Science. Occasional Publication. 26: 119 – 131.
  3. Butler, W.R. and Smith, R.D. (1989) J Dairy Sci. 72: 767-783.
  4. Crane, M.B. et al. (2006) Theriogemology. 65: 1563-1574.
  5. Domínguez, M.M. (1995) Theriogenology. 43: 1405-1418.
  6. Edmondson, A.J. et al. (1989) J Dairy Sci. 72: 68-78.
  7. Vol. 44, No. 1, 2010 31
  8. Ferguson, J.D. and Chalupa, W. (1989) J Dairy Sci. 72: 746-766.
  9. Lucy, M.C. et al. (1992) Reprod Nutr Dev. 32: 331-341.
  10. Makarechian, M. and Arthur, P.F. (1990) Theriogenology. 34: 435-443.
  11. Maas, J. (1987) Vet Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 3: 633-646.
  12. Markusfeld, O. et al. (1997) Vet Rec. 141: 67-72.
  13. Rae, D.O. et al. (1993) Theriogenology. 39: 1143-1152.
  14. Rhind, S.M. et al. (1989) J Endocrinol. 120: 497-502.
  15. Shrestha, H.K. et al. (2005) Theriogenology. 64: 855-866.
  16. Suriyasathaporn, W. et al. (1988) Preventive Vet Med. 37: 159-172.
  17. Spitzer, J. C. (1986) In: Current Therapy (Morrow, D. A. ed.) Saunders, Philadelphia, 320-341.
  18. Thatcher, W.W. et al. (1997) Theriogenology. 47: 131-140.
  19. Wright, I.A. et al. (1987) Anim Prod. 45: 395-402.
  20. Zainur and Wan Zahari. (2005). Beef Production for Malaysian Entrepreneurs. MARDI, Malaysia

Global Footprints