Effects of temperament on production and reproductive performances in Simmental dual-purpose cows

Cziszter, Ludovic Toma; Gavojdian, Dinu; Neamţ, Radu Ionel; Neciu, Florin Cristian; Kusza, Szilvia; Ilie, Daniela Elena

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2016.08.070

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…cattle attempting to escape the race or climbing/pushing on others), as also previously recorded [41,42]. Others have shown that fearful/agitated behaviours in the yards were associated with reduced fertility [11,43], possibly due to stress-induced increases in plasma cortisol concentrations [44], so the lack of an association in the present study was not expected. However, it appears that, in the present study, the commonness of fearful/agitated behaviour was just a temporary indication of the lack of familiarity of extensively managed cattle with yarding and handling, and not necessarily a permanent situation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…The relationship between the welfare of the cows and their reproductive performance has received relatively less attention than nutritional factors, but, more recently, evidence has started to accumulate that both production and reproduction are influenced by welfare [10][11][12]. There is strong evidence from other domestic species such as rabbit does [13] and sows [14,15] that welfare is a significant factor for determining reproductive performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Animal Welfare Quality on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Kaurivi¹,

Laven²,

Parkinson³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One key area where animal welfare may relate to productivity is through reproductive performance. Welfare was assessed on 25 extensively managed pastoral New Zealand beef farms and the relationship between welfare and reproductive performance was explored. Relationships between welfare measures and key reproductive performance indicators (pregnancy rate, weaning rate, mating period and bull: cow ratio) were investigated using an exploratory Principal Components Analysis and linear regression model. Seven welfare measures (thinness, poor rumen fill, dirtiness, blindness, mortality, health checks of pregnant cows and yarding frequency/year) showed potential influence on reproductive performance, and lameness was retained individually as a potential measure. Mean pregnancy rates in both 2018 (PD18) and 2017 (PD17) were ~91% and mean weaning rate was 84%. Of the welfare measures, only lameness had a direct association with pregnancy rate, as well as confounding effect on the association between mating period and pregnancy rate. The bull: cow ration (mean 1:31) and reproductive conditions (dystocia, abortion, vaginal prolapse) did not influence pregnancy and weaning rates. In the study population there was no clear association between welfare and reproductive performance, except for the confounding effects of lameness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Animal Welfare Quality on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Kaurivi¹,

Laven²,

Parkinson³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the frequency of yarding was related to the incidence of fearful behaviour (i.e., cattle attempting to escape the race or climbing/pushing on others), where cows that were yarded few times per year were more fearful, as previously recorded [ 45 , 46 ]. Others have shown that fearful/agitated behaviours in the yards could be related to temperamental cows (i.e., as measured by flight speed) and were associated with reduced fertility [ 14 , 47 ], possibly due to stress-induced increases in plasma cortisol concentrations [ 48 ], so the lack of an association in the present study was not expected. Accepting that temperament and flight zone were not included as part of the welfare assessment (see Kaurivi [ 20 , 21 ] for why), it appears that, in the present study, the commonness of fearful/agitated behaviour was just a temporary indication of the lack of familiarity of extensively managed cattle with yarding and handling, and not necessarily a permanent situation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Poor performance in other reproductive KPIs, such as low conception rates and long post-partum anoestrus, particularly where many cattle are affected, may also provide an indication that there is poor herd welfare [ 12 ]. The relationship between the welfare of the cows and their reproductive performance has received relatively less attention than nutritional factors, but, more recently, evidence has started to accumulate that both production and reproduction are influenced by welfare [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. There is strong evidence from other domestic species, such as rabbit does [ 17 ] and sows [ 18 , 19 ], that welfare is a significant factor for determining reproductive performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Animal Welfare on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Kaurivi

Laven

Parkinson

et al. 2020

Veterinary Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One key area where animal welfare may relate to productivity is through reproductive performance. This study assesses welfare on 25 extensively managed pastoral New Zealand beef farms, and explores the relationship between welfare and reproductive performance. Relationships between welfare measures and key reproductive performance indicators (pregnancy rate, weaning rate, mating period and bull: cow ratio) are investigated using an exploratory principal components analysis and linear regression model. Seven welfare measures (thinness, poor rumen fill, dirtiness, blindness, mortality, health checks of pregnant cows and yarding frequency/year) showed a potential influence on reproductive performance, and lameness was retained individually as a potential measure. Mean pregnancy rates, in both 2018 (PD18) and 2017 (PD17), were ~91% and mean weaning rate was 84%. Of the welfare measures, only lameness had a direct association with pregnancy rate, as well as a confounding effect on the association between mating period and pregnancy rate. The bull: cow ration (mean 1:31) and reproductive conditions (dystocia, abortion, vaginal prolapse) did not influence pregnancy and weaning rates. In the study population, there was no clear association between welfare and reproductive performance, except for the confounding effects of lameness.

show abstract

“…For stockpersonship and handling measures, it appears that three main issues, namely 1) yarding frequency, 2) breed variations and 3) yard design/quality contributed to the high derived thresholds of fearful and falling/lying across the farm types. Fearfulness in cattle was associated with adverse handling [46,47] and sub-optimal production and reproductive performance ( [48,49] . Thus, critical analysis and understanding of the causes of high incidences of fearful cattle in the country are important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures

Kaurivi¹,

Laven²,

Parkinson³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol, by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessment of beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, were applied on 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score of 0: good 1: marginal and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare were subsequently compared with derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. Overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the 3 farm types, showed 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, where commercial farms had 4/22 measures and semi-commercial and communal village farms had 12/22 and 11/22 respectively with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds were retained because of significant importance to welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds were adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, the country needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.

show abstract

Effects of temperament on production and reproductive performances in Simmental dual-purpose cows

Cited by 27 publications

References 30 publications

Effect of Animal Welfare Quality on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Effect of Animal Welfare Quality on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Effect of Animal Welfare on the Reproductive Performance of Extensive Pasture-Based Beef Cows in New Zealand

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About