Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 229–236 | Cite as

Risk factors associated with reproductive performance in small-scale dairy farms in Mexico

  • Luis Javier Montiel-Olguín
  • Eliab Estrada-Cortés
  • Mario Alfredo Espinosa-Martínez
  • Miguel Mellado
  • Josafath Omar Hernández-Vélez
  • Guillermina Martínez-Trejo
  • Felipe J. Ruiz-López
  • Hector Raymundo Vera-AvilaEmail author
Regular Articles
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

Several studies suggest that reproductive performance in small-scale dairy farms is low reducing the farms’ profitability. Therefore, identifying risk factors associated with low reproductive performance is a key step to implement an improved reproductive management program. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to identify the main risk factors affecting the reproductive performance of cows in small-scale dairy farms. Ninety-six dairy farms were incorporated into this study, and data from 1263 lactations were collected with different events as potential risk factors. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association (odds ratio, OR) and impact (population attributable fraction, PAF) between the potential risk factors and the reproductive variables. The main risk factors associated with assisted calving were male calf and primiparous cows (OR = 1.7, PAF = 0.315 and OR = 1.5, PAF = 0.131, respectively), while for retained fetal membranes (RFM) were assisted calving and abortion (OR = 4.5, PAF = 0.440 and OR = 8.1, PAF = 0.239, respectively). The main risk factors for days to first service over 70 days in milk were low body condition score at calving (BCS ≤ 2.5) and primiparous cows (OR = 2.2, PAF = 0.285 and OR = 1.4; PAF = 0.096, respectively), while for days open over 110 days in milk were low BCS at calving (BCS ≤ 2.5) and primiparous cows (OR = 1.7, PAF = 0.213 and OR = 1.4; PAF = 0.096, respectively) The main risk factor for non-pregnant cows at first service was RFM (OR = 1.7; PAF = 0.059). In conclusion, assisted calving, male calf, BCS ≤ 2.5 and RFM were the main risk factors associated with reduced reproductive performance in small-scale dairy farms in tropical and subtropical regions of Mexico.

Keywords

Small-scale dairy system Reproductive performance Risk factors Dairy cattle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Fondo Sectorial de Investigación en Materias Agrícola, Pecuaria, Acuacultura, Agrobiotecnología y Recursos Fitogenéticos (SAGARPA-CONACYT), grant 2010-01-144591.

Compliance with ethical standards

Statement of animal rights

Managements applied to animals throughout the study were according to the protocols indicated in the Mexican Official Norm NOM-051-ZOO-1995 and Mexican Federal Law of Animal Health (DOF 25-07-2007).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abrego Castillo, H. 2011. El sistema familiar de producción de leche bovina en el municipio de Nopalucan, Puebla (Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus Puebla)Google Scholar
  2. Barrera Camacho, G. and Sánchez Brito, C. 2003. Caracterización de la cadena agroalimentaria nacional e identificación de sus demandas tecnológicas. Leche. Reporte Final Etapa II. (Jalisco, México)Google Scholar
  3. Berry, D.P. Lee, J.M. Macdonald, K.A. and Roche, J.R. 2007. Body condition score and body weight effects on dystocia and stillbirths and consequent effects on postcalving performance, Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 4201–4211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijttebier, J. Hamerlinck, J. Moakes, S. Scollan, N., Van Meensel, J., and Lauwers, L. 2017. Low-input dairy farming in Europe: exploring a context-specific notion, Agricultural Systems, 156, 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop, H. and Pfeiffer, D., 2008. Factors effecting reproductive performance in Rwandan cattle, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 40, 181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourne, N. Laven, R. Wathes, D.C. Martinez, T. and McGowan, M. 2007. A meta-analysis of the effects of Vitamin E supplementation on the incidence of retained foetal membranes in dairy cows, Theriogenology, 67, 494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, W.R. and Smith, R.D. 1989. Interrelationships between energy balance and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle, Journal of Dairy Science, 72, 767–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camacho-Vera, J. H., Cervantes-Escoto, F., Palacios-Rangél, M. I., Rosales-Noriega, F., and Vargas-Canales, J.M. 2017. Factores determinantes del rendimiento en unidades de producción de lechería familiar, Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 8, 23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ojeda Carrasco, J.J. Brunett Pérez, L. Espinosa Ayala, E. Álvarez Martínez, J.A. 2012. El aborto bovino: efectos productivos, económicos y sociales en la lechería en pequeña escala en el sur oriente del estado de México. In: 13rd. Congreso Nacional de Investigación Socioeconómica y Ambiental de la Producción Pecuaria. Puebla, Puebla, México, 537Google Scholar
  10. Chalmeh, A. Hajimohammadi, A. and Nazifi, S. 2015. Endocrine and metabolic responses of high producing Holstein dairy cows to glucose tolerance test based on the stage of lactation, Livestock Science, 181, 179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dai, D.-F. Chiao, Y.A. Marcinek, D.J. Szeto, H.H. and Rabinovitch, P.S. 2014. Mitochondrial oxidative stress in aging and healthspan, Longevity & Healthspan, 3, 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Endler, M. Saltvedt, S. Eweida, M. and Åkerud, H. 2016. Oxidative stress and inflammation in retained placenta: a pilot study of protein and gene expression of GPX1 and NFκB, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, 384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erb, H.N. Smith, R.D. Oltenacu, P.A. Guard, C.L. Hillman, R.B. Powers, P.A. Smith, M.C. and White, M.E. 1985. Path model of reproductive disorders and performance, milk fever, mastitis, milk yield, and culling in Holstein cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 68, 3337–3349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Espinoza-Ortega, A., Álvarez-Macías, A., del Valle, M.D.C., and Chauvete, M. 2005. La economía de los sistemas campesinos de producción de leche en el Estado de México, Técnica Pecuaria en México, 43, 39–56Google Scholar
  15. García-Muñiz, J.G. Mariscal-Aguayo, D.V. Caldera-Navarrete, N.A. Ramírez-Valverde, R. Estrella-Quintero, H. and Núñez-Domínguez, R. 2007. Variables relacionadas con la producción de leche de ganado Holstein en agroempresas familiares con diferente nivel tecnológico, Interciencia, 32Google Scholar
  16. Gearhart, M.A. Curtis, C.R. Erb, H.N. Smith, R.D. Sniffen, C.J. Chase, L.E. and Cooper, M.D. 1990. Relationship of changes in condition score to cow health in Holsteins, Journal of Dairy Science, 73, 3132–3140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gröhn, Y.T. and Rajala-Schultz, P.J. 2000. Epidemiology of reproductive performance in dairy cows, Animal Reproduction Science, 60, 605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guevara, R.J.H. González, O.A.T. Espinosa, G.J.A. 2006. GGAVATT Bovinos productores de leche Dobladense, In: González, O.T.A. Espinosa, G.J.A. Luna, E.A.A. (Eds.), Casos Exitosos GGAVATT Guanajuato 2006, (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Celaya, Guanajuato, México). 5–36Google Scholar
  19. Hemme, T. and Otte, J. 2010. Status and prospects for smallholder milk production: a global perspective. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome)Google Scholar
  20. Hossein-Zadeh, N.G. and Ardalan, M. 2011. Cow-specific risk factors for retained placenta, metritis and clinical mastitis in Holstein cows, Veterinary Research Communications, 35, 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inchaisri, C. Jorritsma, R. Vos, P.L.A.M., van der Weijden, G.C., and Hogeveen, H. 2010. Economic consequences of reproductive performance in dairy cattle, Theriogenology, 74, 835–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiménez Jiménez, R.A., Espinosa Ortiz, V., and Soler Fonseca, D.M. 2014. El costo de oportunidad de la mano de obra familiar en la economía de la producción lechera de Michoacán, México, Revista de Investigación Agraria y Ambiental (RIAA); Vol. 5, Núm. 1Google Scholar
  23. Johanson, J.M. and Berger, P.J. 2003. Birth weight as a predictor of calving ease and perinatal mortality in Holstein cattle, Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 3745–3755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kankofer, M. 2001. Antioxidative defence mechanisms against reactive oxygen species in bovine retained and not-retained placenta: activity of Glutathione Peroxidase, Glutathione Transferase, Catalase and Superoxide Dismutase, Placenta, 22, 466–472Google Scholar
  25. Kawonga, B.S., Chagunda, M.G.G., Gondwe, T.N., Gondwe, S.R. and Banda, J.W., 2012. Characterisation of smallholder dairy production systems using animal welfare and milk quality, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44, 1429–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kertz, A.F. Reutzel, L.F. Barton, B.A. and Ely, R.L. 1997. Body weight, body condition score, and wither height of prepartum Holstein cows and birth weight and sex of calves by parity: a database and summary, Journal of Dairy Science, 80, 525–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keshavarzi, H. Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A. Stygar, A.H. and Kristensen, A.R. 2017. Effects of abortion and other risk factors on conception rate in Iranian dairy herds, Livestock Science, 206, 51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. López-Gatius, F. López-Béjar, M. Fenech, M. and Hunter, R.H.F. 2005. Ovulation failure and double ovulation in dairy cattle: risk factors and effects, Theriogenology, 63, 1298–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markusfeld, O. Galon, N. and Ezra, E. 1997. Body condition score, health, yield and fertility in dairy cows, Veterinary Record, 141, 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martínez-García, C.G., Ugoretz, S.J., Arriaga-Jordán, C.M. and Wattiaux, M.A., 2015. Farm, household, and farmer characteristics associated with changes in management practices and technology adoption among dairy smallholders, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 47, 311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mee, J.F. 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: a review, The Veterinary Journal, 176, 93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreno-García, A. Herrera-Arreola, G. Carrión-Gutiérrez, M. Alvarez-Bernal, D. Elena, P.S. and Ortiz Rodriguez, R. 2012. Caracterización y modelación esquemática de un sistema familiar de bovinos productores de leche en la Ciénega de Chapala, México, Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción Animal, 20, 85–94Google Scholar
  33. Núñez, H.G. González, C.F. Bonilla, C.J.A. and Bustamante, G.J.J. 2009. Proceso de alimentación. In: A. H. R. Vera et al. (eds), Producción de Leche de Bovino en el Sistema Familiar, (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias: Veracrúz), 81–114Google Scholar
  34. Potter, T.J. Guitian, J. Fishwick, J. Gordon, P.J. and Sheldon, I.M. 2010. Risk factors for clinical endometritis in postpartum dairy cattle, Theriogenology, 74, 127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rajala, P.J. and Gröhn, Y.T. 1998. Effects of dystocia, retained placenta, and metritis on milk yield in dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 3172–3181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roche, J. F. 2006. The effect of nutritional management of the dairy cow on reproductive efficiency, Animal Reproduction Science, 96, 282–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAGARPA. 2004. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. Situación actual y perspectiva de la producción de leche de ganado bovino en México 1900–2000. (México, D.F.)Google Scholar
  38. Santos, J.E.P. Rutigliano, H.M. and Filho, M.F.S. 2009. Risk factors for resumption of postpartum estrous cycles and embryonic survival in lactating dairy cows, Animal Reproduction Science, 110, 207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silva Salas, M.A., Torres Cardona, M.G., Brunett Pérez, L., and Germán Peralta Ortiz, J. J., Jiménez Badillo, M.R. 2017. Evaluación de bienestar de vacas lecheras en sistema de producción a pequeña escala aplicando el protocolo propuesto por Welfare Quality®, Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 8, 53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steinbock, L. Näsholm, A. Berglund, B. Johansson, K. and Philipsson, J. 2003. Genetic effects on stillbirth and calving difficulty in Swedish Holsteins at first and second calving, Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 2228–2235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Val-Arreola, D. Kebreab, E. Dijkstra, J. and France, J. 2004. Study of the lactation curve in dairy cattle on farms in central Mexico, Journal of Dairy Science, 87, 3789–3799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vázquez-Selem, E. Aguilar-Barradas, U. and Villagómez-Cortés, J.A. 2016. Comparación de la eficiencia productiva y económica de grupos ganaderos organizados de doble propósito y de lechería familiar/semiespecializada, Ciencia Administrativa, 1, 226–237Google Scholar
  43. Vera, A.H. Hernández, A.L. Espinoza, G.J. Ortega, R.L. Díaz, A.E. Román, P.H. Núñez, H.G. Medina, C.M. Ruiz, L.F. 2009. Producción de leche de bovino en el sistema familiar, Libro técnico Núm. 24, Veracruz, México. 384 p.Google Scholar
  44. Villa-Godoy, A. Hughes, T.L. Emery, R.S. Chapin, L.T. and Fogwell, R.L. 1988. Association between energy balance and luteal function in lactating dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 71, 1063–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Villaseñor, G.F., Estrada, C.E., Espinosa, M.M.A., Vera, A.H.R., de la Torre, S.J.F., and Villagómez, A.M.E. 2011. Prevalencia de distocias y retenciones placentarias en establos bajo el sistema de producción familiar en Jalisco. In: XXIII Semana Internacional de Agronomia FAZUJED, (Venecia, Durango, México), 993-996Google Scholar
  46. Zamudio, B.A. Alberti, M., del P Manzo, F., and Sánchez, M.T. 2003. La participación de las mujeres en los sistemas de traspatio de producción lechera en la ciudad de México, Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 51, 37–60Google Scholar
  47. Zhang, J. and Yu, KF 1998. What`s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, JAMA, 280, 1690–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Javier Montiel-Olguín
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eliab Estrada-Cortés
    • 3
  • Mario Alfredo Espinosa-Martínez
    • 2
  • Miguel Mellado
    • 4
  • Josafath Omar Hernández-Vélez
    • 5
  • Guillermina Martínez-Trejo
    • 6
  • Felipe J. Ruiz-López
    • 2
  • Hector Raymundo Vera-Avila
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias NaturalesUniversidad Autónoma de QuerétaroSantiago de QuerétaroMexico
  2. 2.Centro Nacional de Investigación Disciplinaria en Fisiología y Mejoramiento Animal-INIFAPAjuchitlánMexico
  3. 3.Campo Experimental Centro Altos de Jalisco-INIFAPTepatitlánMexico
  4. 4.Departamento de Nutrición AnimalUniversidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio NarroSaltilloMexico
  5. 5.Campo Experimental San Martinito-INIFAPSanta Rita TlahuapanMexico
  6. 6.Campo Experimental Valle de México-INIFAPTexcocoMexico

Personalised recommendations