Reproductive behavior in multiparous vs. nulliparous goats in response to the buck effect

Authors

  • Alejandro García Salas Departamento de Producción Animal. Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315
  • Héctor Cruz-Martínez Departamento de Producción Animal. Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315
  • Pedro Carrillo-López Departamento de Producción Animal. Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315
  • Perpetuo Álvarez-Vázquez Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables. Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315
  • José Eduardo García-Martínez Departamento de Nutrición Animal, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315
  • Fidel Maximiano Peña-Ramos Departamento de Suelos, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo, Coahuila, México. C. P. 25315

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59741/agri.v3iNE1.26

Keywords:

Short estrus, goats, fertility, reproductive biotechnology

Abstract

The use of the buck effect to synchronize estrus in goats is a clean, ecological and ethical reproductive biotechnology. The objective of this study was to analyze the reproductive behavior in multiparous (T1) and nulliparous (T2) goats after the introduction of the male goat. The study was conducted during the month of August 2023, at the Caprine Unit of the Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, located in Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico. A total of 12 goats of the French Alpine breed, composed of 50% multiparous and 50% nulliparous individuals, were used. Additionally, a male of the Saanen breed was included in the study. The time of the first female-male contact was recorded, after which the male was introduced for 60 minutes in the afternoon. The goat was recorded for the appearance of external signs of estrus, allowed a natural mating service when estrus was detected and a second service 24 hours later. Results showed that T1 showed external signs of estrus in less time (9.2 days) compared to T2 (10.93 days) after the first contact with the male. In addition, T1 showed higher prolificacy with respect to T2 (1.6 vs. 1.0), respectively. It can be concluded that multiparous goats are more receptive to stimuli generated by the male effect (ME) and, therefore, tend to show better reproductive behavior in response to this reproductive biotechnology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alvarez, L., G. B. Martin, F. Galindo, and L. A. Zarco. 2003. “Social Dominance of Female Goats Affects Their Response to the Male Effect.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84(2):119–26. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.003

Balaro, Mario Felipe A., Samuel Guaraná Valverde de Mello, Alex da Silva Santos, Luiza Mattos Cavalcanti, Nádia Regina Pereira Almosny, Jeferson F. Fonseca, and Felipe Z. Brandão. 2019. “Reproductive Seasonality in Saanen Goats Kept under Tropical Conditions.” Tropical Animal Health and Production 51(2):345–53. doi: 10.1007/s11250-018-1696-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1696-2

Bedos, Marie, Wendy Portillo, Jean Philippe Dubois, Gerardo Duarte, José A. Flores, Philippe Chemineau, Matthieu Keller, Raúl G. Paredes, and José A. Delgadillo. 2016. “A High Level of Male Sexual Activity Is Necessary for the Activation of the Medial Preoptic Area and the Arcuate Nucleus during the ‘Male Effect’ in Anestrous Goats.” Physiology and Behavior 165:173–78. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.07.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.07.018

Cadena-Villegas, Said, José A. Hernández-Marín, Jaime Gallegos-Sánchez, Carlos G. Germán- Alarcón, and Ponciano Pérez-Hernández. 2021. “Reproductive Management of the Male Goat: A Review.” Agro Productividad. doi: 10.32854/agrop.v14i8.2102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.v14i8.2102

Chemineau, Philippe, Maria Theresa Pellicer-Rubio, Narjess Lassoued, Gley Khaldi, and Danielle Monniaux. 2006. “Male-Induced Short Oestrous and Ovarian Cycles in Sheep and Goats: A Working Hypothesis.” Reproduction Nutrition Development 46(4):417–29. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2006022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2006022

Delgadillo, J. .., J. A. Flores, G. Fernández, M. Socorro, J. Duarte, G.Vielma, H. Hernández, G. Fitz-rodríguez, Marie Bedos, and I. .. Fernández. 2012. “Control de La Actividad Sexual de Los Caprinos Sin Hormonas Exógenas: Uso Del Fotoperiodo, Efecto Macho y Nutrición.” Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 15–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.1260

Delgadillo, J. Alberto, Helene Gelez, Rodolfo Ungerfeld, Penelope A. R. Hawken, and Graeme B. Martin. 2009. “The ‘male Effect’ in Sheep and Goats-Revisiting the Dogmas.” Behavioural Brain Research 200(2):304–14. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.02.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.02.004

Delgadillo, José Alberto, José Alfonso Abecia, Matthieu Keller, and Philippe Chemineau. 2021. “Las Interacciones Socio-Sexuales, Alternativa Para Manipular La Reproducción de Los Pequeños Rumiantes.” Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal 45(4):361–68. doi: 10.21451/1809-3000.rbra2021.048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21451/1809-3000.RBRA2021.048

Farsi, H., M. Mhani, M. R. Achaâban, R. Boukhliq, A. Tibary, and K. El Allali. 2018. “Environmental Cues and Seasonal Patterns of Reproduction in Goats.” Revue Marocaine Des Sciences Agronomiques et Vétérinaires 6(2):158–67.

Fernández, Ilda G., Juan Ramón Luna-Orozco, Jesús Vielma, Gerardo Duarte, Horacio Hernández, José Alfredo Flores, Hélène Gelez, and José Alberto Delgadillo. 2011. “Lack of Sexual Experience Does Not Reduce the Responses of LH, Estrus or Fertility in Anestrous Goats Exposed to Sexually Active Males.” Hormones and Behavior 60(5):484–88. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.07.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.07.016

Habeeb, Hayder Mohammed Hassan, and Michelle Anne Kutzler. 2021. “Estrus Synchronization in the Sheep and Goat.” Veterinary Clinics of North America - Food Animal Practice 37(1):125–37. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.10.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.10.007

Luna-Orozco, J. R., I. G. Fernández, H. Gelez, and J. A. Delgadillo. 2008. “Parity of Female Goats Does Not Influence Their Estrous and Ovulatory Responses to the Male Effect.” Animal Reproduction Science 106(3–4):352–60. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.05.011

Martínez-Alfaro, J. C., H. Hernández, J. A. Flores, G. Duarte, G. Fitz-Rodríguez, I. G. Fernández, M. Bedos, P. Chemineau, M. Keller, J. A. Delgadillo, and J. Vielma. 2014. “Importance of Intense Male Sexual Behavior for Inducing the Preovulatory LH Surge and Ovulation in Seasonally Anovulatory Female Goats.” Theriogenology 82(7):1028–35. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.07.024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.07.024

Mellado, M., R. Olivas, and F. Ruiz. 2000. “Effect of Buck Stimulus on Mature and Pre-Pubertal Norgestomet-Treated Goats.” Small Ruminant Research 36(3):269–74. doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(99)00122-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(99)00122-4

Rosa, H. J. D., and M. J. Bryant. 2002. “The ‘ram Effect’ as a Way of Modifying the Reproductive Activity in the Ewe.” Small Ruminant Research 45(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00107-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00107-4

Simões, J., G. Baril, J. C. Almeida, J. Azevedo, P. Fontes, and R. Mascarenhas. 2008. “Time of Ovulation in Nulliparous and Multiparous Goats.” Animal 2(5):761–68. doi: 10.1017/S175173110800195X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110800195X

Villaquiran, M., Terry. Gipson, R. Merkel, A. L. Goetsch, and T. Sahlu. 2017. “Body Condition Scores in Goat.” Goat Field Day (3):1–7.

Downloads

Published

2024-10-22

How to Cite

Reproductive behavior in multiparous vs. nulliparous goats in response to the buck effect. (2024). Universitas Agri, 3(NE1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.59741/agri.v3iNE1.26

PLUM Metrics