Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:46:43.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attainment of puberty and response to superovulation in performance-tested Simmental heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. D. Tregaskes ,
P. J. Broadbent ,
J. S. M. Hutchinson ,
J. A. Roden  and
D. F. Dolman
L. D. Tregaskes
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA University of Aberdeen, Department of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
P. J. Broadbent
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
J. S. M. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, Department of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
J. A. Roden
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, Department of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
D. F. Dolman
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
Get access

Abstract

Puberty during performance test and the effect of reproductive maturity and performance on test on superovulatory response were investigated using Simmental heifers.

Three generations of Simmental heifers (no. = 110) were performance tested for beef characteristics between 23 and 49 weeks of age over 3 years successively. Embryo recoveries were performed at 52 and 61 weeks of age following the end of the performance test. The onset of puberty was observed in 26 of 30 (87%) heifers in the 3rd year. The mean age at puberty was 284·7 (s.e. 6·63) days. Age at puberty was not significantly related to daily live-weight gain (1·5 (s.e. 0·02) kg) up to the onset of puberty. Heifers experienced zero to six oestrous cycles before initiation of the first superovulatory treatments. There was a non-significant tendency (P > 0·05) for heifers that were not cyclic to produce the highest yields of viable and grade 1 embryos at the first embryo recovery.

Performance test characteristics recorded were: total food intake (1604·0 (s.e. 13·2) kg), total energy intake (1852·0 (s.e. 169·0) MJ metabolizable energy) and live-weight gain (263·9 (s.e. 2·2) kg) during test; live weight (486·5 (s.e. 31·5) kg), backfat depth (5·6 (s.e. 15) mm) and muscle score (9·6 (s.e. 0·10) units) at the end of test and estimated breeding value for the selection index (+£7·00 (s.e. 0·76)). These were used as independent variables in general linear models to study their relationship with various measures of superovulatory response. Recovery rate of ova and embryos; and the yields of viable and grade 1 embryos were not related to any aspects of performance on test.

In conclusion, superovulation and embryo recovery were affected by reproductive maturity at the time of gonadotropin treatment and these procedures may be more effective in juvenile heifers before the establishment of cyclicity. Embryo production from 12- to 15-month-old Simmental heifers following a beef performance test was not related to their performance on test.

Keywords

heifersperformance testingpubertysuperovulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , August 1996 , pp. 65 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Adams, G. P. 1994. Control of ovarian follicular wave dynamics in cattle: implications for synchronization and superstimulation. Theriogenology 41: 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, D. W., Holland, G. L. and Totusek, R. 1971. Some effects of obesity in beef females. Journal of Animal Science 33: 1129–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bielanski, A. and Yadav, B. R. 1990. A note on fertilization and embryo production in superovulated cattle with various levels of subcutaneous fat tissue. Animal Production 51: 426–430.Google Scholar
Black, W. G., Ulberg, L. C., Christian, R. E. and Casida, L. E. 1953. Ovulation and fertilization in the hormone-stimulated calf. Journal of Dairy Science 36: 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bo, G. A., Caccia, M., Martinez, M., Adams, G. P., Pierson, R. A. and Mapletoft, R. J. 1994. The use of estradiol-17β and progestogen treatment for the control of follicular wave emergence in beef cattle. Theriogenology 41: 165 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, P. J. 1990. The NOSCA Simmental MOET project. British Cattle Breeder's Club Digest 45: 44–48.Google Scholar
Byerley, D. J., Staigmiller, R. B., Berardinelli, J. G. and Short, R. E. 1987. Pregnancy rates of beef heifers bred on pubertal or third estrus. Journal of Animal Science 65: 645–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, C. L. 1982. Effects of postweaning rate of gain on onset of puberty and productive performance of heifers of different breeds. Journal of Animal Science 55: 1272–1283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. B., Schillo, K. K., Fitzgerald, B. P., Hileman, S. M., Estienne, M. J., Bradley, N. W. and Boling, J. A. 1990. Effects of bovine somatotropin and dietary energy on LH secretion, follicular growth and onset of puberty in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 68: (suppl. 1) 437 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Jainudeen, M. R., Hafez, E. S. E. and Lineweaver, J. A. 1966. Superovulation in the calf. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 12: 149–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, E. J., Armstrong, J. D. and Harvey, R. W. 1991. Changes in metabolites, metabolic hormones, and luteinizing hormone before puberty in Angus, Bradford, Charolais, and Simmental heifers. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1607–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. Animal Production 35: 99–111.Google Scholar
Kinder, J. E., Day, M. L. and Kittock, R. J. 1987. Endocrine regulation of puberty in cows and ewes. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 34: (suppl.) 167–186.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindner, G. M. and Wright, R. W. 1983. Bovine embryo morphology and evaluation. Theriogenology 20: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijering, A. 1984. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle — a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11: 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, C., Quirke, J. F. and Roche, J. F. 1989. Puberty in heifers: a review. Animal Reproduction Science 18: 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T. C., Short, R. E., Phelps, D. A. and Staigmiller, R. B. 1985. Non puberal estrus and mature cow influences on growth and puberty in heifers. Journal of Animal Science 61: 470–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, S. J., Chadwick, J. P., Owen, M. G. and Page, S. J. 1988. Evaluation of seven ultrasonic machines for estimating carcass composition in live bulls. Animal Production 46: 496 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Roberson, M. S., Wolfe, M. W., Stumpf, T. T., Werth, L. A., Cupp, A. S., Kojima, N., Wolfe, P. L., Kittock, R. J. and Kinder, J. E. 1991. Influence of growth rate and exposure to bulls on age at puberty in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2092–2098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods, seventh edition. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Staigmiller, R. B., Short, R. E., Bellows, R. A. and Carr, J. B. 1979. Effect of nutrition on response to exogenous FSH in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 48: 1182–1190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, T. S., Long, C. R. and Cartwright, T. C. 1980. Characterization of cattle of a five-breed diallel. III. Puberty in bulls and heifers. Journal of Animal Science 50: 808–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiltbank, J. N., Kasson, C. W. and Ingalls, J. E. 1969. Puberty in crossbred and straightbred beef heifers on two levels of feed. Journal ofAnimal Science 29: 602–605.Google Scholar