Breeding soundness, libido and performance of beef bulls mated to estrus synchronized females

Farin, P.W.; Chenoweth, Peter J.; Tomky, D.F.; Ball, L.; Pexton, J.E.

doi:10.1016/0093-691x(89)90460-3

Cited by 36 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During natural service, the effects of extraneous influences on the fertility-associated parameters measured during a BSE, may contribute to alteration of reproductive capability and variability in reproductive performance [4]. Pregnancy rates achieved by bulls with satisfactory classification are consistently higher than untested bulls and generally higher than bulls not meeting satisfactory standards [5,6], however, the known limitations of the BSE [2,7] and the influence of environmental factors on fertility make the predictive value of the BSE towards reproductive performance of the individual bull unreliable [6,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Fertility of yearling beef bulls during mating

Ellis¹,

Rupp²,

Chenoweth

et al. 2005

Theriogenology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crossbred (Bos taurus) yearling beef bulls were assessed for breeding soundness and physical traits prior to multi-sire natural mating at pasture. Bulls (n = 60) were assigned to six groups of nine or 10 bulls and two bull-groups were rotated on 14-day intervals during a 63-day mating season in each breeding herd (n = 3) of 191-196 cows. The remaining bulls (n = 14) were maintained under similar environmental conditions without mating exposure. Bulls were observed during mating and assessed for breeding soundness and changes following mating. Bulls used for breeding (UFB) lost 77 kg of body weight and declined from body condition scores of 6 to 4.5, whereas bulls not used for breeding (NUB) maintained body condition scores of 6 and gained 27 kg. The UFB bulls incurred a 75% total injury rate with 63% incidence of lameness and 12% incidence of reproductive injuries, resulting in a 22% attrition rate. Only 45% were physically sound at the end of mating. Scrotal circumference declined in UFB bulls (À4.58%) and increased in NUB bulls (2.49%). From the 98% BSE-satisfactory rate (UFB) prior to breeding, only 61% were BSE-satisfactory post-breeding. The NUB bulls declined from 57 to 36% satisfactory. The BSE classification was influenced by significant increases in abnormal spermatozoa (primary and secondary), which was significantly associated with injuries incurred during mating. Group and breed differences in injury rates and BSE-status following mating were evident. Environmental conditions and mating activity influenced bull seminal quality and physical condition. Pregnancy rates in all three breeding herds (91-96%) were similar, with insignificant differences between bull-groups; the effects of physical and reproductive changes on individual bull fertility were immeasurable. #

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Fertility of yearling beef bulls during mating

Ellis¹,

Rupp²,

Chenoweth

et al. 2005

Theriogenology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The benefits of examining bulls for breeding soundness are welldocumented. Bulls classified as satisfactory for breeding soundness achieved a 9% higher pregnancy rate in a breeding period in single-sire breeding herds than bulls of questionable breeding potential [2]. Bulls which are unsatisfactory could be completely infertile with total loss of the potential calf crop in the single-sire situation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Bull breeding soundness evaluation in Southern Africa

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in northern climates bulls may experience testicles that become frozen after being turned into a pen or pasture at their new home may not pass another BSE administered at a later stage, closer to the breeding season. Other injuries or illnesses that occur throughout the When cows were bred to bulls in either the satisfactory or deferred categories (termed "questionable" prior to 1993), a greater proportion of females bred to bulls classifi ed as satisfactory breeders (46.6 %) were pregnant at the end of the breeding season compared with females bred to bulls classifi cation as deferred (36.5 %; Farin et al 1989 ). No differences, however, were observed among BSE classifi cation in number of times bulls mounted females, number of services, or percentage of females serviced.…”

Section: Bullsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Reproductive Technologies on Beef Production in the United States

Dahlen

Larson

Lamb

2013

Current and Future Reproductive Technologies and World Food Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimations of world population growth indicate that by the year 2050 we will reach nine billion habitants on earth. These estimates impose a tremendous challenge in the current agricultural systems as food supply will need to increase by 100 % in the next 40 years (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2009). Beef will be a primary protein source that will assist in meeting the requirements for a portion of the protein in diets of this expanding global populace. Beef is a high-quality protein that contains all essential amino acids for the human body and also contains additional essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, B vitamins, riboflavin, selenium, choline, and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Adopting reproductive technologies at greater rates than currently used is a viable method to dramatically enhance production efficiency of beef cattle enterprises.Artificial insemination (AI), estrous synchronization and fixed-time AI (TAI), semen and embryo cryopreservation, multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET), in vitro fertilization, sex determination of sperm or embryos, and nuclear transfer are technologies that are used to enhance the production efficiency of beef operations. In many cases, the development of these technologies is responsible for significant changes to traditional livestock production practices. However, adoption of these technologies appears to has not grown at the same rate in the United States as other formidable beef producing nations. For example, sales of beef semen for AI increased from 3.3 to 11.9 million units between 1993 and 2011 in Brazil, whereas that in the United States has increased from 2.9 to 3.8 million units during the same period. The significant increases in adoption of reproductive technologies in developing countries is likely as a result of the development of practical estrous synchronization and TAI systems that have allowed beef producers the opportunity to eliminate detection of estrus in their AI programs with a high degree of success. In the United States, slow adoption rates of these technologies may result in a future loss of international market share of beef products as other nations take advantage not only of the additional kilogram of beef that can be produced but also the improved quality of beef that can be realized through incorporation of reproductive technologies and resultant genetic improvement. However, current difficulties the US producers have with the incorporation of applied reproductive technologies, such as TAI, MOET, and sex semen, must not be the reason to overlook and incorporate more traditional reproductive technologies such as castration, breeding season management, or weaning. In many cases, beef producers in the United States fail to incorporate these more traditional technologies, which results in a reduction in production efficiency of the US beef industry. This chapter will focus on both traditional and more developed reproductive technologies that will play a role in enhancing future production efficiencies of...

show abstract

Breeding soundness, libido and performance of beef bulls mated to estrus synchronized females

Cited by 36 publications

References 10 publications

Fertility of yearling beef bulls during mating

Fertility of yearling beef bulls during mating

Bull breeding soundness evaluation in Southern Africa

Impacts of Reproductive Technologies on Beef Production in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About