Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:44:58.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Associations between feed efficiency, sexual maturity and fertility-related measures in young beef bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2015

A. B. P. Fontoura
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Y. R. Montanholi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
M. Diel de Amorim
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
R. A. Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
T. Chenier
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
S. P. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
*
Get access

Abstract

The beef industry has emphasized the improvement of feed utilization, as measured by modeling feed intake through performance traits to calculate residual feed intake (RFI). Evidence supports an inverse relationship between feed efficiency and reproductive function. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship of reproductive assessments and RFI unadjusted (RFIKoch) or adjusted for body composition (RFIus) and the relationship among fertility-related parameters. In total, 34 crossbred bulls were housed together for 112 days of performance evaluation, followed by assessment of scrotum IR imaging, scrotal circumference, testes ultrasonography and semen quality parameters at 377±33.4 days of age. Bulls were slaughtered at 389±34.0 days of age, and analyses of carcass composition, biometrics and histomorphometry of the testis and epididymis were conducted. Bulls were grouped into two subpopulations based on divergence of RFI, and within each RFI model either by including 50% of the population (Halves, high and low RFI, n=17) or 20.6% extremes of the population (Tails, high and low RFI, n=7). The means of productive performance and fertility-related measures were compared through these categories. Pearson’s correlation was calculated among fertility-related measures. In the Halves subpopulation of the RFIus, sperm of low-RFI bulls had decreased progressive motility (47.30% v. 59.90%) and higher abundance of tail abnormalities (4.30% v. 1.80%) than that of high-RFI bulls. In the Tails subpopulation of the RFIKoch, low RFI displayed less variation in the scrotum surface temperature (0.62°C v. 1.16°C), decreased testis echogenicity (175.50 v 198.00 pixels) and larger (60.90 v. 56.80 mm2) but less-developed seminiferous tubules than high-RFI bulls. The evaluation of fertility-related parameters indicated that a higher percentage of immature seminiferous tubules was correlated with occurrence of sperm with distal droplets (r=0.59), a larger temperature variation at the top of the scrotum was correlated with improved sperm progressive motility (r=0.38), a lower occurrence of sperm loose head abnormalities was correlated with larger temperature variation at the lower part of the scrotum (r=−0.43), and a lower minimum testis echogenicity (r=−0.59) and smaller scrotal circumference (r=0.72) were correlated with age. The adjustment for body composition (RFI determination) enabled distinct biological inferences about reproduction and feed efficiency when compared with the non-adjusted model. However, both RFI models and the correlation analysis supported the hypothesis that feed-efficient bulls have features of delayed sexual maturity. Overall, the assessment of fertility-related measurements is important to avoid the improvement of feed efficiency at the expense of reproductive function in young bulls.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Abdel-Raouf, M 1961. The proliferation of germ cells in the testes of bull calves and young bulls. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2, 22.Google Scholar
Ahmad, E, Ahmad, N, Naseer, Z, Aleem, M, Khan, MS, Ashiq, M and Younis, M 2011. Relationship of age to body weight, scrotal circumference, testicular ultrasonograms, and semen quality in Sahiwal bulls. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43, 159164.Google Scholar
Ahmed, EA and de Rooij, DG 2009. Staging of mouse seminiferous tubules cross-sections. Methods in Molecular Biology 558, 263277.Google Scholar
Awda, BJ, Miller, SP, Montanholi, YR, Vander Voort, G, Caldwell, T, Buhr, MM and Swanson, KC 2013. The relationship between feed efficiency traits and fertility in young beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 93, 185192.Google Scholar
Barth, AD 2000. Bull breeding soundness evaluation, 2nd edition. The Western Canadian Association of Bovine Practitioners, Saskatoon, Canada.Google Scholar
Barth, AD and Oko, R 1989. Abnormal morphology of bovine spermatozoa, 1st edition. Iowa State University Press, Iowa City, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Barth, AD and Ominski, KH 2000. The relationship between scrotal circumference at weaning and at one year of age in beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 41, 541546.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Y and Hochberg, Y 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 57, 289300.Google Scholar
Berry, DP and Crowley, JJ 2013. Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 15941613.Google Scholar
Birkett, S and de Lange, K 2001. Limitations of conventional models and a conceptual framework for a nutrient flow representation of energy utilization by animals. British Journal of Nutrition 86, 647659.Google Scholar
Bressler, RS and Lustbader, IJ 1978. Effect of testosterone on development of the lumen in seminiferous tubules of the rat. Andrologia 4, 291298.Google Scholar
Brito, LFC, Barth, AD, Wilde, RE and Kastelic, JP 2012. Testicular ultrasonogram pixel intensity during sexual development and its relationship with semen quality, sperm production, and quantitative testicular histology in beef bulls. Theriogenology 78, 6976.Google Scholar
Cammack, KM, Thomas, MG and Enns, RM 2009. Reproductive traits and their heritabilities in beef cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 25, 517528.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, PJ, Spitzer, JC and Hopkins, FM 1992. A new bull breeding soundness form. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Theriogenology, San Antonio, TX, USA, 14–15 August, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
Coe, PH 1999. Associations among age, scrotal circumference, and proportion of morphologically normal spermatozoa in young beef bulls during an initial breeding soundness examination. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 214, 16641667.Google Scholar
Cook, RB, Coulter, GH and Kastelic, JP 1994. The testicular vascular cone, scrotal thermoregulation, and their relationship to sperm production and seminal quality in beef bulls. Theriogenology 41, 653671.Google Scholar
Coulter, GH 1988. Thermography of bull testes. Proceedings of the 12th Technical Conference on Artificial Insemination & Reproduction, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 22–23 April, pp. 58–62.Google Scholar
Curtis, SK and Amann, RP 1981. Testicular development and establishment of spermatogenesis in Holstein bulls. Journal of Animal Science 53, 16451657.Google Scholar
Evans, ACO, Pierson, RA, Garcia, A, McDougall, LM, Hudrka, F and Rawlings, NC 1996. Changes in circulating hormone concentrations, testes histology and testes ultrasonography during sexual maturation in beef bulls. Theriogenology 46, 345357.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Hafla, AN, Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GE, Forrest, DW, Fox, JT, Forbes, TD, Davis, ME, Randel, RD and Hollaway, JW 2012. Relationships between feed efficiency, scrotal circumference, and semen quality traits in yearling bulls. Journal of Animal Science 90, 39373944.Google Scholar
Herd, RM, Archer, JA and Arthur, PF 2003. Reducing the cost of beef production through genetic improvement in residual feed intake: opportunity and challenges to application. Journal of Animal Science 81, E9E17.Google Scholar
Kastelic, JP 2014. Understanding and evaluating bovine testes. Theriogenology 81, 1823.Google Scholar
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chamber, D and Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486494.Google Scholar
Kolath, WH, Kerley, MS, Golden, JW and Keisler, DH 2006. The relationship between mitochondrial function and residual feed intake in Angus steers. Journal of Animal Science 84, 861865.Google Scholar
Mader, CJ, Montanholi, YR, Wang, YJ, Miller, SP, Mandell, IB, McBride, BW and Swanson, KC 2009. Relationships among measures of growth performance and efficiency with carcass traits, visceral organ mass, and pancreatic digestive enzymes in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 15481557.Google Scholar
Martig, RC and Alquimist, JO 1969. Reproductive capacity of beef bulls. III. Postpubertal changes in fertility and sperm morphology at different ejaculation frequencies. Journal of Animal Science 28, 375378.Google Scholar
Montanholi, YR, Swanson, KC, Schenkel, FS, McBride, BW, Caldwell, TR and Miller, SP 2009. On determination of residual feed intake and associations of infrared thermography with efficiency and ultrasound traits in beef bulls. Livestock Science 125, 2230.Google Scholar
Nelsen, TC, Long, CR and Cartwright, TC 1982. Post inflection growth in straight bred and crossbred cattle II: relationships among weight, height and pubertal characters. Journal of Animal Science 55, 293304.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Dubeski, P and Hanson, CF 1993. Factors that alter the growth and development of ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 71, 31383150.Google Scholar
Pruitt, RJ, Corah, LR, Stevenson, JS and Kiracofe, GH 1986. Effect of energy intake after weaning on the sexual development of beef bulls. II. Age at first mating, age at puberty, testosterone and scrotal circumference. Journal of Animal Science 63, 579585.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 1533.Google Scholar
Walker, JS, Winet, H and Freund, M 1982. A comparison of subjective and objective sperm motility evaluation. Journal of Andrology 3, 184192.Google Scholar
Wang, Z, Colazo, MG, Basarab, JA, Goonewardene, LA, Ambrose, DJ, Marques, E, Plastow, G, Miller, SP and Moore, SS 2012. Impact of selection for residual feed intake on breeding soundness and reproductive performance of bulls on pastured-based multi-sire mating. Journal of Animal Science 90, 29632969.Google Scholar
Willet, EL and Ohms, JI 1957. Measurement of testicular size and its relation to production of spermatozoa by bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 40, 15591569.Google Scholar