1992
DOI: 10.1016/0093-691x(92)90115-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of low level of feeding on response to synchronization of estrus, ovulation rate and embryo loss in goats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
23
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This study indicated that restriction of dietary energy intake pre-mating resulted in less body weight gain, delay and suppression of oestrus following synchronization, and reduced litter size. These findings are consistent with the observation that low energy intake adversely affected the lambing rate (Mauraya et al, 2004), delayed the onset of oestrus, lowered the ovulation rate and the incidence of multiple ovulations, and further reduced the pregnancy rate in goats (Mani et al, 1992;Kusina et al, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…This study indicated that restriction of dietary energy intake pre-mating resulted in less body weight gain, delay and suppression of oestrus following synchronization, and reduced litter size. These findings are consistent with the observation that low energy intake adversely affected the lambing rate (Mauraya et al, 2004), delayed the onset of oestrus, lowered the ovulation rate and the incidence of multiple ovulations, and further reduced the pregnancy rate in goats (Mani et al, 1992;Kusina et al, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…However, the longer period of restriction probably explains the lower litter size reported in Umberger's study. Indeed, a higher energy amount around the time of breeding increases the ovulation rate in sheep (Lassoued et al, 2004) and goats (Mani et al, 1992). Live weight and BCS of ewes at both lambings were similar among groups in this study (Table 2).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…However, this interval was relatively shorter than those reported by Freitas et al (1996a,b), Romano (1996), Freitas et al (1997), Romano (1998), Ak et al (1998), Greyling and Van der Nest (2000) and Motlomelo et al (2002) in does. These differences may be explained by the differences in breed, lactation, nutrition, season, use of gonadotrophins, presence of females in pro-oestrus/oestrus and presence of the male after sponge removal that are known to influence this parameter (Doney et al, 1973;Greyling & Van Niekerk, 1990;Mani et al, 1992;Romano, 1998;Ahmed et al, 1998;Romano, 2002).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%