Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:26:46.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Undernutrition reduces the body weight and testicular size of bucks exposed to long days but not their ability to stimulate reproduction of seasonally anestrous goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

J. A. Delgadillo ,
A. Lemière ,
J. A. Flores ,
M. Bedos ,
H. Hernández ,
J. Vielma ,
M. Guerrero-Cervantes ,
L. A. Zarazaga ,
M. Keller  and
P. Chemineau
J. A. Delgadillo*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila27054, Mexico
A. Lemière
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila27054, Mexico
J. A. Flores
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila27054, Mexico
M. Bedos
Affiliation:
Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, Unidad Juriquilla, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Querétaro76230, Mexico
H. Hernández
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila27054, Mexico
J. Vielma
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación en Reproducción Caprina, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila27054, Mexico
M. Guerrero-Cervantes
Affiliation:
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Carretera Durango-Mezquital, Km 11.5 Durango, Durango, Mexico
L. A. Zarazaga
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Universidad de Huelva, ‘Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario, ceiA3’, Carretera Huelva-Palos de la Frontera s/n, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva21819, Spain
M. Keller
Affiliation:
UMR Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRAE, CNRS, IFCE, Université de Tours, Agreenium, Nouzilly37380, France
P. Chemineau
Affiliation:
UMR Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRAE, CNRS, IFCE, Université de Tours, Agreenium, Nouzilly37380, France
*
†E-mail: joaldesa@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

In semiarid conditions, feed is often scarce and variable with underfeeding being common; these factors can potentially induce fertility reductions in both sexes. Sexually active bucks are able to very efficiently fertilize out-of-season goats, but we do not know whether underfeeding would reduce the ability of bucks to fertilize goats during these periods. Two experiments were conducted to determine (i) testicular size and change of odor intensity of undernourished bucks exposed to long days and (ii) the ability of these bucks to stimulate reproductive activity in seasonally anestrous goats. In experiment 1, bucks (n = 7) were fed 1.5 times the normal maintenance requirements from September to May and formed the well-fed group. Another group of bucks (n = 7) were fed 0.5 times the maintenance requirements and formed the undernourished group. All bucks were subjected to artificially long days from 1 November to 15 January; this period was followed by a natural photoperiod until 30 May. Body weight, scrotal circumference and male odor intensity changes were determined every 2 weeks. In experiment 2, two groups of female goats (n = 26 each) were exposed to well-fed (n = 2) or undernourished bucks (n = 2) on 31 March. Ovulations and pregnancy rates were determined by transrectal ultrasonography. In experiment 1, a treatment by time interaction was detected for BW, scrotal circumference and odor intensity changes (P < 0.001). The BWs of well-fed bucks were greater than those of the undernourished bucks from October to May (P < 0.01), as were the scrotal circumferences from December to March (P < 0.05) and odor intensities from February to May (P < 0.05). In experiment 2, the proportions of females that ovulated at least once (100% v. 96%) or those that were diagnosed as pregnant (85% v. 77%; P > 0.05) did not differ significantly between the goats exposed to well-fed or undernourished bucks. The interval between the introduction of bucks and the onset of estrous behavior was shorter in goats exposed to well-fed bucks compared to the interval for those goats exposed to undernourished bucks (2.5 ± 0.2 v. 9.5 ± 0.6 days; P < 0.05). We conclude that undernourishment reduces the testicular size and odor intensity responses in bucks exposed to long days, but that undernourished bucks are still able to stimulate reproductive activity in seasonally anestrous goats, as is also the case for well-fed bucks.

Keywords

caprinephotoperiodmale effectnutritionpregnancy
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 2562 - 2569
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bedos, M, Duarte, G, Flores, JA, Fitz-Rodríguez, G, Hernández, H, Vielma, J, Fernández, IG, Chemineau, P, Keller, M and Delgadillo, JA 2014. Two or 24 h of daily contact with sexually active males results in different profiles of LH secretion that both lead to ovulation in anestrous goats. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 48, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedos, M, Flores, JA, Fitz-Rodríguez, G, Keller, M, Malpaux, B, Poindron, P and Delgadillo, JA 2010. Four hours of daily contact with sexually active males is sufficient to induce fertile ovulation in anestrous goats. Hormones and Behavior 58, 473–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedos, M, Muñoz, AL, Orihuela, A and Delgadillo, JA 2016. The sexual behavior of male goats exposed to long days is as intense as during their breeding season. Applied Animal Behavior Science 184, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canépa, S, Lainé, AL, Bluteau, A, Fagu, C, Flon, C and Monniaux, D 2008. Validation d’une méthode immunoenzymatique pour le dosage de la progestérone dans le plasma des ovins et des bovins. Cahiers Techniques. Inra 64, 9–30.Google Scholar
Chasles, M, Chesneau, D, Moussu, C, Delgadillo, JA, Chemineau, P and Keller, M 2016. Sexually active bucks are efficient to stimulate female ovulatory activity during the anestrous season also under temperate latitudes. Animal Reproduction Science 168, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemineau, P, Daveau, A, Maurice, F and Delgadillo, JA 1992. Seasonality of estrus and ovulation is not modified by subjecting female Alpine goats to a tropical photoperiod. Small Ruminant Research 8, 299–312.Google Scholar
Chemineau, P, Pellicer-Rubio, MT, Lassoued, N, Khaldi, G and Monniaux, D 2006. Male-induced short oestrous and ovarian cycles in sheep and goats: a working hypothesis. Reproduction Nutrition and Development 46, 417–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgadillo, JA, Canedo, GA, Chemineau, P, Guillaume, D and Malpaux, B 1999. Evidence for an annual reproductive rhythm independent of food availability in male Creole goats in subtropical northern Mexico. Theriogenology 52, 727–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgadillo, JA, Cortez, ME, Duarte, G, Chemineau, P and Malpaux, B 2004. Evidence that the photoperiod controls the annual changes in testosterone secretion, testicular and body weight in subtropical male goats. Reproduction Nutrition and Development 44, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgadillo, JA, Flores, JA, Véliz, FG, Hernández, H, Duarte, G, Vielma, J, Poindron, P, Chemineau, P and Malpaux, B 2002. Induction of sexual activity in lactating anovulatory female goats using male goats treated only with artificially long days. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2780–2786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgadillo, JA, Gelez, H, Ungerfeld, R, Hawken, PAR and Martin, GB 2009. The “male effect” in sheep and goats-Revisiting the dogmas. Behavior Brain Research 200, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, G, Flores, JA, Malpaux, B and Delgadillo, JA 2008. Reproductive seasonality in female goats adapted to a subtropical environment persists independently of food availability. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 35, 362–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duarte, G, Nava, MP, Malpaux, B and Delgadillo, JA 2010. Ovulatory activity of female goats adapted to the subtropics is responsive to photoperiod. Animal Reproduction Science 120, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitz-Rodríguez, G, De Santiago-Miramontes, MA, Scaramuzzi, RJ, Malpaux, B and Delgadillo, JA 2009. Nutritional supplementation improves ovulation and pregnancy rates in female goats managed under natural grazing conditions and exposed to the male effect. Animal Reproduction Science 116, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González de Bulnes, A, Santiago-Moreno, J and López-Sebastián, A 1998. Estimation of fetal development in Manchega dairy ewes by transrectal ultrasonographic measurements. Small Ruminant Research 27, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Walkden-Brown, SW, Blackberry, MA and Martin, GB 1995. The effect of nutrition on testicular growth in mature Merino rams involves mechanisms that are independent of changes in GnRH pulse frequency. Journal of Endocrinology 147, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, GB, Hötzel, MJ, Blache, D, Walkden-Brown, SW, Blackberry, MA, Boukhliq, R, Fisher, J and Miller, DW 2002. Determinants of the annual pattern of reproduction in mature male Merino and Suffolk sheep: modification of responses to photoperiod by an annual cycle in food supply. Reproduction Fertility and Development 14, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, GB and Walkden-Brown, SW 1995. Nutritional influences on reproduction in mature male sheep and goats. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 49, 437–449.Google ScholarPubMed
Muñoz, AL, Bedos, M, Aroña, RM, Flores, JA, Hernández, H, Moussu, C, Briefer, EF, Chemineau, P, Keller, M and Delgadillo, JA 2016. Efficiency of the male effect with photostimulated bucks does not depend on their familiarity with goats. Physiology and Behavior 158, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oldham, CM, Adams, NR, Gherardi, PB, Lindsay, DR and McKintosh, JB 1978. The influence of level of feed intake on sperm-producing capacity of testicular tissue in the ram. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellicer-Rubio, MT, Leboeuf, B, Bernelas, D, Forgerit, Y, Pougnard, JL, Bonné, JL, Senty, E and Chemineau, P 2007. Highly synchronous and fertile reproductive activity induced by the male effect during deep anoestrus in lactating goats subjected to treatment with artificially long days followed by natural photoperiod. Animal Reproduction Science 98, 241–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ponce, JL, Velázques, H, Duarte, G, Bedos, M, Hernández, H, Keller, M, Chemineau, P and Delgadillo, JA 2014. Reducing exposure to long days from 75 to 30 days of extra-light treatment does not decrease the capacity of male goats to stimulate ovulatory activity in seasonally anovulatory females. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 48, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restall, BJ 1992. Seasonal variation in reproductive activity in Australian goats. Animal Reproduction Science 27, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas-Muñoz, R, Fitz-Rodríguez, G, Poindron, P, Malpaux, B and Delgadillo, JA 2007. Stimulation of estrous behavior in grazing female goats by continuous or discontinuous exposure to males. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1257–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación 2001. Especificaciones técnicas para la producción, cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio, diario oficial de la federación. México, Mexico.Google Scholar
Shelton, M 1960. Influence of the presence of a male goat on the initiation of oestrous cycling and ovulation of Angora does. Journal of Animal Science 19, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simões, J, Almeida, JC, Baril, G, Azevedo, J, Fontes, P and Mascarenhas, R 2007. Assessment of luteal function by ultrasonographic appearance and measurement of corpora lutea in goats. Animal Reproduction Science 97, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
System Statistics (SYSTAT) 13 2009. Cranes Software International Ltd., San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Walkden-Brown, SW, Restall, BJ and Henniawati, 1993a. The male effect in the Australian cashmere goat. 3. Enhancement with buck nutrition and use of oestrous females. Animal Reproduction Science 32, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden-Brown, SW, Restall, BJ and Henniawati, 1993b. The male effect in the Australian cashmere goat. 2. Role of olfactory cues from the male. Animal Reproduction Science 32, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden-Brown, SW, Restall, BJ, Norton, BW, Scaramuzzi, RJ and Martin, GB 1994. Effect of nutrition on seasonal patterns of LH, FSH and testosterone concentration, testicular mass, sebaceous gland volume and odour in Australian cashmere goats. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 102, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walkden-Brown, SW, Restall, BJ, Scaramuzzi, RJ, Martin, GB and Blackberry, MA 1997. Seasonality in male Australian cashmere goats: long term effects of castration and testosterone or oestradiol treatment on changes in LH, FSH and prolactin concentrations, and body growth. Small Ruminant Research 26, 239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarazaga, LA, Gatica, MC, Hernández, H, Gallego-Calvo, L, Delgadillo, JA and Guzman, JL 2017. The isolation of females from males to promote a later male effect is unnecessary if the bucks used are sexually active. Theriogenology 95, 42–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed