medigraphic.com

2020, Number 1

<< Back

Vet Mex 2020; 7 (1)

Cow-calf management practices in Mexico: Reproduction and breeding

Lassala A, Hernández-Cerón J, Pedernera M, González-Padilla E, Gutiérrez CG

Language: English/Spanish
References: 24
Page: 1-15
PDF size: 249.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Beef cattle breeding has developed in extensive grazing systems in Mexico, concerning the livelihood of over one million families and affecting the use of natural resources. Reproductive efficiency is a major determinant of both the environmental impact of the herd, and the economic viability of the cow-calf production system. As reproductive traits have low heritability, reproductive efficiency can be largely influenced by herd management practices. Thus, a questionnaire was administered as personal interviews to 3280 producers, to investigate the prevalence of practices that could directly influence the reproductive outcome of their cattle. Results show that yearround breeding (93%) and natural service by the bull (97.4%) are the most common mating methods. However, only 41% of producers evaluate the breeding soundness of their bulls, and diagnostic testing for specific reproductive diseases of the sires is barely performed in 20% of the farms. The main declared reason for replacing the bull is old age (26.8%), which is followed by to avoid inbreeding (68.4%). Less than 10% of the operations use methods for the synchronization of the estrous cycle, and most farmers breed their heifers for the first time after 2 years of age (73%). Diagnosis of pregnancy is performed in merely 31% of operations, with 23% of the producers declaring to discard non-pregnant cows. Energy or protein feed supplements are provided to the cattle in 63% of the production units, whilst mineral supplements are given in 79% of the farms. Calves are typically weaned between 6 months and a year of age (85%). Only 16% of operations vaccinate against brucellosis and 17.5% against other reproductive diseases (IBR-DVB-VSR and Leptospirosis). The present study showcases a low frequency of adoption of basic reproductive management practices by cow-calf operations in Mexico. Advancement of these practices, as well as implementation and promotion of associated technologies, denotes an area of opportunity to improve the reproductive efficiency of the national herd.


REFERENCES

  1. Martinez R, Lowe K, Ramirez Godinez JA. Bull reproductive evaluation under range management in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. 1989. Available from: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=MX8980020

  2. Coordinación de Ganadería. SAGARPA. Seguimiento técnico de la situación reproductiva de los inventarios de bovinos de carne y doble propósito de los beneficiarios del componente producción pecuaria sustentable y ordenamiento ganadero y producción sustentable y ordenamiento ganadero y apícola (PROGAN). México: SAGARPA; 2012.

  3. White RR, Brady M, Capper JL, McNamara JP, Johnson KA. Cow–calf reproductive, genetic, and nutritional management to improve the sustainability of whole beef production systems. J Animal Sci. 2015;93(6) 3197–211. https:// doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8800.

  4. USDA. Beef 2007-08. Beef Cow-calf Management Practices in the United States, 2008. Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/ animalhealth/monitoring-and-surveillance/nahms/nahms_beef_ cowcalf_studies

  5. González-Padilla E, Lassala A, Pedernera M, Gutierrez CG. Cow-calf management practices in Mexico: Farm organization and infrastructure. Vet México OA. 2019;6(3).

  6. VSN International. Genstat for Windows. 19th ed. Hemel Hempstead: VSN International; 2017.

  7. García E. Modificaciones al Sistema de clasificación climática de Koppen. 5ª ed. México: Instituto de Geografía, UNAM; 2004.

  8. Índice de marginación municipal. Consejo Nacional de Población, 2013. Available from: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Indices_de_ Marginacion_Publicaciones

  9. Enríquez de la Fuente BA, Galin CS, Navarro R, Gutiérrez AC. Estimación de la época más propicia para un empadre estacional en ganado cebú bajo condiciones de trópico húmedo. Avances en Investigación Agropecuaria. 1993;2(2)101-14.

  10. Towers J, Mainland I, Montgomery J, Bond J. Calving seasonality at Pool, Orkney during the first millennium AD: an investigation using intra-tooth isotope ratio analysis of cattle molar enamel. Environmental Archaeology. 2017;22(1):40- 55. doi: 10.1080/14614103.2015.1116214.

  11. Bó GA, Baruselli PS, Mapletoft RJ. Synchronization techniques to increase the utilization of artificial insemination in beef and dairy cattle. Anim Reprod. 2013;10(3):137-42.

  12. Baruselli PS, Ferreira RM, Sá Filho MF, Bó GA. Review: Using artificial insemination v. natural service in beef herds. Animal. 2018;12:S45-52. doi: 10.1017/ S175173111800054X

  13. Gasser CL. Considerations on puberty in replacement beef heifers. J Anim Sci. 2013;91:1336-40.

  14. Galina CS, Arthur G.H. Review of cattle reproduction in the tropics. Part 1. Puberty and age at first calving. Animal Breeding Abstracts. 1989;57:583-90.

  15. D’Occhio MJ, Baruselli PS, Campanile G. Influence of nutrition, body condition, and metabolic status on reproduction in female beef cattle: A review. Theriogenology. 2019;125:277-84. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.11.010.

  16. Morrison DG, Spitzer JC, Perkins JL. Influence of prepartum body condition score change on reproduction in multiparous beef cows calving in moderate body condition. J Anim Sci. 1999;77:1048-54.

  17. Small-scale U.S. Cow-calf Operations. USDA APHIS. 2011. Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/smallscale/downloads/ Small_scale_beef.pdf.

  18. Ungerfeld R, Quintans G, Hötzel M. Minimizing cows’ stress when calves were early weaned using the two-step method with nose flaps. Animal. 2016;10(11):1871-6. doi:10.1017/S1751731116000793.

  19. Lippolis KD, Ahola JK, Mayo CE, Fischer MC, Callan RJ. Effects of two-stage weaning with nose flap devices applied to calves on cow body condition, calf performance, and calf humoral immune response. J Animal Sci. 2016;94(2):816-23. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9624

  20. Quintans G, Banchero G, Carriquiry M, López-Mazz C, Baldi F. Effect of body condition and suckling restriction with and without presence of the calf on cow and calf performance. Anim Prod Sci. 2010:50:931-8. doi.org/10.1071/AN10021

  21. Orihuela A, Galina CS. Effects of separation of cows and calves on reproductive performance and animal welfare in tropical beef cattle. Animals (Basel). 2019;9(5):E223. doi: 10.3390/ani9050223.

  22. Hernández Cerón J, Lassala A, Pedernera M, González-Padilla E, Gutiérrez GC. Manejo reproductivo del ganado bovino en sistemas de producción de carne en méxico. Reproductive management in cow-calf beef production units in mexico. Reunión Nacional de Investigación Pecuaria. Memoria, Vol. 1. 2018. p. 100-2.

  23. Camacho SJ, Ramírez GS, Aguilar MP. Capacidad reproductiva de sementales en fincas ganaderas de Costa Rica. Revista UTN. 2017;80:46-50.

  24. Kennedy SP, Spitzer JC, Hopkins FM, Higdon HL, Bridges WC Jr. Breeding soundness evaluations of 3,648 yearling beef bulls using the 1993 Society for Theriogenology guidelines. Theriogenology. 2002;58:947-61.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com