740 calving out of 210 animals registered at Maraguán Livestock Genetic Enterprise in Camagüey province, Cuba. The variables offspring sex, herd, calving number, calving season, and calving year were performed a multivariate analysis of variance using the statistical package SPSS. Non-genetic factors significantly influenced (P &lt; 0,01) the intercalving period reaching a mean value of 389,2 ± 6,3 days; besides, it showed a negative trend for the years 2007 and 2010

Ceró Rizo, Ángel

Guevara Viera, Guillermo

Maza Luis, Luis

Villavicencio Reyes, Omar

English

Portal de Revistas - Universidad de Camagüey

Rev. prod. anim., 25 (2): 2013 I S S N  2 2 2 4 - 7 9 2 0  Non-Genetic Factors Influence on Intercalving Period in Female Water Ángel Ceró Rizo*, Guillermo Guevara Viera*, Luis Maza Luis** y Omar Villavicencio Reyes** * Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Camagüey, Cuba ** Maraguan Genetic Center, Camagüey, Cuba angel.cero@reduc.edu.cu ABSTRACT Non-genetic factors influence upon the intercalving period in female water buffaloes were evaluated by studying 740 calving out of 210 animals registered at Maraguán Livestock Genetic Enterprise in Camagüey province, Cuba. The variables offspring sex, herd, calving number, calving season, and calving year were performed a multivariate analysis of variance using the statistical package SPSS. Non-genetic factors significantly influenced (P < 0,01) the intercalving period reaching a mean value of 389,2 ± 6,3 days; besides, it showed a negative trend for the years 2007 and 2010. Key Words: water buffalo, intercalving period, non-genetic factors  INTRODUCTION The water buffalo and its two types, swamp and river, was introduced in Cuba in the 1980s. It has spread throughout the country due to their adapta-bility to different environments (Méndez, Bueno, Betancourt and Almaguer, 2010). In 1986 buffalo dairies were set up in the prov-ince of Camagüey, each included 30 cows with a bull  for mating. The species slowly developed, still with rudimentary techniques. Revenue from buffalo milk and beef sales are now used for de-veloping buffalo exploitation (Fundora, 2008; Delgado, 2009). Many works carried out in the country and Lati-namerica corroborate the influence of the herd, number of deliveries, offspring gender and year of delivery on buffalo reproductive behavior. Buffa-lo in Cuba have the capacity to reproduce all year, with the best results observed in winter (Fundora and González 2001; Amorin and Fraga, 2010; Ceró, González, Ortega and Viamontes, 2011). The aim of this paper is to assess the influence of some nongenetic factors on the interval bete-ween deliveries in river buffalo, at the Maraguan Genetic Center in the province of Camagüey, Cu-ba. MATERIALS AND METHODS The research was developed at Rancho Alegre Farm. Data from 740 deliveries of 210 buffalo cows in seven dairies between 2007 and 2009 were used. The samples belonged to Maraguan Genetic Center in Jimaguayú municipality, east of Camagüey City. To the north, it has borders with Samaraguacan River; to the south, with Carretera Central; to the east, with road to Cuarto Anillo Road; and west, with road to Amistad Cubano Bulgara Dam. The main goal was milk and beef production. The farm has 230 ha (Table 1), with two or three enclosures per dairy, and some areas are covered with undesirable species like marabú (Dichros-tachys cinerea), aroma (Acacia farnesiana) and caguaso (Paspalum virgatum). Native Texan (Paspalum notatum) and Camagueyan (Bothri-ochloa pertusa) grasslands are predominant, with espartillo (Sporobolus indicus); along with kin-grass (Pennisetum sp), guinea (Panicum max-imun), star (Cynodon nlemfuensis) and sugar cane (Sacharum officinarum). Tree species like algar-roba, (Samanea saman), pinnon (Glyricidia se-pium), guazuma (Guazuma ulmifolia), leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), ceyba (Ceiba pentan-dra), mango (Manquifera indica), ateje (Cordia colococca), cedar (Cedrela odorata ), jaguey (Fi-cus sp) and royal palm (Roistonea regia), are also present. According to the Cuban classification, the soils are fersialitic (CITMA, 2003). Water is supplied to animals through windmills, wells, ponds, and cylindrical tanks with a trough around them. In the area, the anual mean humidity is 84 %, with mean temperature values of 24-29 ºC. The mean rainfall values are 1120 mm . Grazing takes place all year on the buffalo farms, with occasional supply of feed concentrate. Direct mating is carried out (one bull per thirty cows), and natural calf raising, weaning at 6-8 months old. Non-Genetic Factors Influence on Intercalving Period in Female Water Rev. prod. anim., 25 (2): 2013 Hand milking is performed once a day, early in the morning (4-6 am) in the presence of the calf. A quarter milk is left for the calf after milking. The herds then go grazing between 9 and 11 am for breastfeeding. The offspring is taken from their mothers around 11:30 and is sometimes giv-en Norgold in shade stalls, depending on the sup-plies. Mothers remain grazing all afternoon and evening, until the next milking. At birth, the calf´s navels are treated with disin-fecting solution at 2 % for ten days. If the umbili-cal cord remains after treatment, it is cut around 10 cm from the navel and disinfected. Though rustic, buffalo may suffer from omphalitis and omphalophlebitis. Between days four and five af-ter birth, buffalo calves are treated for parasitic in-festations. According to regulations, a clip is in-serted in each ear, to both male and female calves. Clips can be used in case red-hot iron marker is unavailable. The calf stays with its mother until 10 days old, so it can get all required colostrum. The data to compile the information and study the intervals between deliveries (IPP) were col-lected from each animal´s control card, based on the number of deliveries.  To estimate IPP and the effect on nongenetic factors involved, SPSS statistics software (2006), version 15, was used. Basic statigraphs calcula-tion and variable normality analysis were per-formed through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To analyze variance equality the Levene test was applied; to prove the influence on nongenetic factors a multiple linear variance analysis was performed. The mathematical model applied was,  Yijklmn = µ +Si + Rj + Nk+ El + Am + e ijklmn where: Yijklmn: dependent variable for IPP, corres-ponding to ith subclass. µ: general constant. Si: constant effect of offspring gender (i = 1,2). Rj: constant effect of herd (j = 1…..7) Nk: constant effect of the number of deliveries (k = 1…4). El: constant effect of the delivery season (l = 1,2). Am: constant effect of delivery year (m = 1…..4) eijklmn: experiental error. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 shows a quite uniform distribution of observations regarding the variation sources used in the mathematical model. Table 2 shows significant IPP for all variation sources. The result of 389.2 days is consistent with the results achieved in Asia and Latin Amer-ica, by Janakiraman (1982), who reported values of 365-426 day; and Baruselli (2000), with 375.6-410 days. In Cuba Mitat (2007) has reported 370-390 days, at Los Naranjos Enterprise in Havana. Padrón (2010) has reported values for 367.3-416 days on El Cangre Enterprise in Havana, with grazing and nutrition conditions similar to our study. Some researchers, like Lundstrom et al. (1982) in Sri Lanka, and Osmán (1985) in Egypt, have reported values for 530, 538 and 525 days, re-spectively. These results are not close to this study, because the tenance, handling and nutrition conditions are different under extensive manage-ment. In Table 3 the significant influence of offspring gender on the feature studied can be observed. Méndez and Fraga (2010), in Cuba, reported that sex of the offspring had a significant influence on birth weight. Scannone (2006) on researching buffalo cows found no significant influence. Soysal and Kok (2004), and Herrera et al. (2006) have claimed that the sex of the fetus did not affect the duration of gestation. The results of this paper lead to the conclusion that IPP lengthening is linked to to calf weight and sex. It has been identified as one of the most important problems during parturition. Though some authors have stated that dystocia rarely ap-pears in buffalo, bull calves need 20-60 % more time of labor than heifer calves do, as males are gestated longer. As a result, their weight is greater and dystocia percentages are directly proportional to greater body weight at birth. The herd effect (Table 4) had a significant in-fluence on the feature studied. The result was sim-ilar to Mitat (2008), who confirmed that herds have a significant influence on the interval be-tween deliveries. The enterprise and province were the sources with the highest variations in the feature, mainly determined by herd ownership, handling and nutrition. Á. Ceró, G. Guevara, L. Maza y O. Villavicencio Rev. prod. anim., 25 (2): 2013 Crespo et al. (2010), Fraga and Ramos (2010), and Suárez et al. (2011) have demonstrated that the herd effect is determining in reproductive be-havior, due to variations in nutrition, handling and weather conditions in each region. In Table 5 young buffalo cows with one or two deliveries are shown to have unfavorable values for the feature studied, in comparison with older cows with more than three parturitions. This re-sult is similar to Cero (2011) in Camagüey for 359.7 days. The values achieved were higher than the ones corroborated at the farm in the study. The number of deliveries was regarded as signifi-cant in terms of reproductive behaviors. These results have been corroborated by Crudel-li (2004), who stated that a progressive decline in IPP is produced in relatoin with the number of de-liveries. Also, young buffalo cows had longer de-livery intervals, since, they still mature for five or six years; they are not fully sexually mature and their reproductive capacity is not completely de-veloped. The differences observed for the interval values in the rainy season compared with the dry season (Table 6) will depend on the availability of green pastures in the rainy season; when the quality and quantity of pasture per hectare is increased, and so is animal nutrition. Moreover, the reproductive ef-ficiency indicators are improved (Méndez y Fra-ga, 2010). Cuba has significant differences between the rainy and dry seasons in terms of IPP (368.8 and 414.1 days, respectively), very similar to the pop-ulation studied, and higher than Cordero et al. (2010) (473.6 and 419.8 days for the rainy and dry seasons, respectively). These differences are given by the availability, quality and access to pasture, which favor nutri-tional improvement. Mitad (2002) —cited by García et al. (2010)— considered that buffalo cows with parturition in the dry season have greater IPP, as a result of unfavorable nutritional and climatic factors. Table 7 shows that the year of delivery differs significantly from the study years, and a great dif-ference is observed for interval between delive-ries. These values are similar to Ramírez (2009) and Ceró et al. (2011) in Cuba. All this points to the fact that the year of delivery was significant for reproductive features. These results are corroborated by García et al. (2010) and Suárez et al. (2011), who observed that all years do not have the same behavior in terms of weather conditions, personnel involved, the availability of feed and animal handling in tropical and subtropical regions. CONCLUSIONS When studying interdelivery conditions, genetic and nongenetic factors should be taken into ac-count. The behavior of Cuban river buffalo cow is similar to the rest of their species in Latin Ameri-ca. REFERENCES AMORIM, A y FRAGA, L (2010). Capacitar y producir en un ambiente seguro. Ponencia presentada en el Tercer Congreso Producción Animal Tropical, Pa-lacio de las Convenciones, La Habana, Cuba. BARUSELLI, P. (2000). Estudos sobre reprodução em bubalinos no Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Anales 1er Simposio de Búfalos del Mercosur, Fac. Cienc. Vet., UNNE, Argentina. BENÍTEZ, D. (2006). Características productivas del búfalo en Argentina. Noticias y comentarios, (408). Ediciones Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agro-pecuaria, Argentina. CERÓ, A.; GONZÁLEZ, F.; ORTEGA, G. y VIAMONTES. D. (2011). Comportamiento de rasgos de creci-mientos y reproductivos en búfalas de río. Revista de Producción Animal, 23 (1), 21-29. CITMA (2003). Diagnóstico ambiental de la cuenca del río San Pedro en Camagüey, Cuba. Camagüey, Cuba: Centro de Investigaciones de Medio Am-biente, Ministerio de la Ciencia Tecnología y Me-dio Ambiente. CORDERO, W.; RAMOS, A.; MALHADO, A. y FERRAZ, F. (2010). Intervalo entre partos y la distribución de partos por mes de búfalos en el sur y sur-este de Brasil. Revista Italiana de Ciencia Animal, 6 (2), 593-596. CRESPO, M.; FRAGA, L y HERNÁNDEZ, M. (2010). Fac-tores ambientales que afectan algunos indicadores productivos y reproductivos en la empresa genética Valle del Perú. Ponencia presentada en el Tercer Congreso de Producción Animal Tropical, 15 al 19 de noviembre, La Habana, Cuba. CRUDELLI, G. (2004). La especie bufalina. II Simposio de búfalos de las Américas, Corrientes, Argentina. DELGADO, D. (2009). Desarrollo de un sistema soste-nible para la producción de leche, carne y trabajo mediante la alimentación y manejo del búfalo de río. Informe final del proyecto CITMA, La Habana, Cuba. Non-Genetic Factors Influence on Intercalving Period in Female Water Rev. prod. anim., 25 (2): 2013 FRAGA, L. y RAMOS, A. (2010). Producción de leche por días de intervalo entre partos de búfalo en Cu-ba y Brasil. Su interés para la selección. Ponencia presentada en el Tercer Congreso de Producción Animal Tropical, La Habana, Cuba. FUNDORA, O y GONZÁLEZ, M. (2001). Performance of Primiparous River Buffaloes and Their Progeny. The Búfalo. An Alternative for Animal Agriculture in the Tirad Millennium Proceeding of VI World Buffalo Congress, Maracaibo, Venezuela. FUNDORA, O. (2008). Consideraciones para el manejo de búfalos de río en lecherías. II Congreso Interna-cional de Producción Animal Tropical, 22 al 25 de noviembre, Instituto de Ciencia Animal, La Haba-na, Cuba. GARCÍA, Y.; FRAGA, L.; PADRÓN, E.; GUZMÁN, G. y MORA, M. (2010). Comportamiento productivo y reproductivo del Búfalo de agua en la Empresa Genética “El Cangre” en la Provincia Habana. XVII Fórum de base de Ciencia y Técnica, ICA, Mayabeque, Cuba. HERRERA, P.; CAMPO, E.; DENIS, R.; FUNDORA, O. y VEGA, OB. (2006). La gestación en búfalas de río. Características clínicas. Centro de investigación para el mejoramiento animal e Instituto de Ciencia Animal, FMV de la Universidad Agraria de la Habana. JANAKIRAMAN, K. (1982). Aspect of Managenent To-wards Improving the Reproductive Efficiency of Surti Buffalo and Thereby Production Performance. Buffalo Bulletin, 1 (3), 8-10. LUNDSTROM, K.; ABEYGUANAWARDENA, H. y DE SILVA, L.(1982). Environmental Influence on Cal-vin Interval and Estimates of its Repeatability in the Murrah Buffalo in Sri Lanka. Animal Repro-duction Science, 5, 99-109. MÉNDEZ, M. y FRAGA, L (2010). Factores no genéticos en indicadores reproductivos y de crecimiento de las búfalas (Bubalus bubalis) en la provincia de Granma, Cuba. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agríco-la, 44 (2), 123-128. MÉNDEZ, M.; BUENO, N.; BETANCOURT, M. y ALMAGUER, Y. (2010). Algunas consideraciones sobre los búfalos y su manejo genético en Cuba. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria Zootecnia de Granma. Extraído el 5 de abril de 2011, desde http://ict.udg.co.cu/FTPDocumentos/Literatura%20Cientifi-ca/Maestria%20Nutrición%20Animal/6.%20eventos%20relevantes/convenci%C3%B3n%20202005%20(D)/archivos/salas/Veterinaria/Mildred%20Mendes%20M.%20M.%20Algunaspdf. MITAT, A. (2002). El búfalo de agua en animal agríco-la del futuro. Programa de desarrollo del búfalo de agua, Ministerio de la Agricultura, Grupo Técnico-Ejecutivo. MITAT, A. (2007). Curva de lactancia en hembras le-cheras Bufalipso y mestizas Carabao. II Congreso de Producción Animal Tropical, I Simposio Inter-nacional de Producción de Rumiantes, Instituto de Ciencia Animal, La Habana, Cuba. MITAT, A. (2008). La producción de leche en el día de control para la selección de búfalas en Cuba. Tesis de doctorado en Ciencias Veterinarias, IIPP y CIMA, La Habana, Cuba. OSMÁN, A. (1985). Breeding Buffaloes in the New Valley Desert Area of Egypt. Assiut Veterinary Medical Journal, 14 (28), 187-201. PADRÓN, E.; RIVERO, E.; GARCÍA, Y.; CAMPOS, C. y RODRÍGUEZ, R. (2010). Experiencia adquirida y perspectivas en el desarrollo bufalino en la Empre-sa Pecuaria Genética El Cangre, provincia La Habana. III Congreso de Producción Animal Tro-pical, La Habana, Cuba RAMÍREZ, J. (2009). Factores no genéticos que afectan la producción de leche de búfalas cruzadas. Me-morias del V Simposio de Búfalos das Américas, Brasil. SCANONNE, H. (2006). Explotación del búfalo en Ve-nezuela. Memorias III Simposio Búfalos de las Américas 2006, Medellín, Colombia. SOYSAL, M. Y y KOK, S.(2004). Buffalo Breeding in Turkiye. 7th World Buffalo Congress, 20-23 octo-ber, Makati, Philippines, Procedings. SUÁREZ, M.; RAMOS, F.; PLANAS, T y ALMANZA, N. (2011). Comportamiento productivo y reproductivo del búfalo en Cuba. Revista ACPA, 1, 52-54.  Recibido: 18-4-2013 Aceptado: 20-4-2013      Table 1. Distribution of observation per effect in the mathematical model used Identification   Number of observations Total  740 Offspring sex Male 418 Female 322 Number of deliveries 1 216 2 195 3 167 4 162 Seaon of delivery Dry (1) 311 Rainy (2) 429 Year of delivery 2007 155 2008 197 2009 207 2010 183 Herds 1 107 2 104 3 105 4 105 5 107 6 106 7 106   Table 2. Mean and standard error for the feature studied. Variance analysis Variation sources IPP(days) Offspring sex ** Herds ** Number of deliveries ** Season of delivery ** Year of delivery ** X ± ES R2 (%) 389.2 ± 6.31 93.0 ** equal to (P < 0.01)   Table 3. IPP behavior of offspring sex Offspring sex IPP (days) Male 390.6 ± 1.2 a Female 388.3 ± 1.1 b Different letters mean a significant difference (P < 0.01)           Table 4. IPP behavior of herds Herds IPP (days) X±ES 1 421. 2 ± 17.6 a 2 367.5 ± 13.6 b 3 375.3 ± 11.2 b 4 383.3 ± 10.9 b 5 401.4 ± 11.1 a 6 380.9 ± 10.4 ab 7 396.7 ± 12.4 a Different letters mean a significant difference (P < 0.01)   Table 5. IPP behavior of the number of deliveries Number of deliveries IPP (days) 1 426.2 ± 7.5 a 2 421.8 ± 7.9 a 3 403.2 ± 12.2 b 4 394.1 ± 10.1 b Different letters mean significant differences (P < 0.01)   Table 6. IPP behavior of the season of delivery Season of delivery IPP (days)Dry 402.3 ± 9.7 a Rainy 377.4 ± 6.4 b Different letters mean significan differences (P < 0.01)   Table 7. IPP behavior of the years of delivery Year of delivery IPP (days) 2007 343.1 ± 12.3 a 2008 365.5 ± 10.4 b 2009 411.3 ± 9.1 c 2010 439.6 ± 8.6 d Different letters mean significant differences (P < 0.01)    

Non-Genetic Factors Influence on Intercalving Period in Female Water

https://revistas.reduc.edu.cu/index.php/rpa/article/download/2550/2313

Non-Genetic Factors Influence on Intercalving Period in Female Water

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Portal de Revistas - Universidad de Camagüey