Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:12:48.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fertility in dairy cows: bridging the gaps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

M. D. Royal
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston, South Wirral CH64 7TE, UK
R. F. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston, South Wirral CH64 7TE, UK
N. C. Friggens
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract

Type
Foreword
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Dairy cattle are an integral part of agriculture worldwide, providing many products in addition to milk for the human population. The efficient production of these products is of utmost importance and high reproductive performance is absolutely crucial to this. In September 1999, Dr Michael Diskin led a committee (Dr Joseph M. Sreenan, Prof James Roche, Prof Maurice Boland and Dr Diarmuid O’Callaghan) to organize an extremely successful and informative occasional meeting ‘Fertility in the High-Producing Dairy Cow’, jointly with the British Society of Animal Science (BSAS) in Galway, Ireland, to address the important issue of declining reproductive performance in dairy cattle. The full papers were later published in an occasional publication by BSAS (2001). As discussed by Dr John Robinson in the conference summary, ‘…delegates, after a starting point of uncertainty about how to deal with the problem [infertility], came away very well informed scientifically and, if perhaps with varying views as to the best way forward, more aware of the multi-disciplinary research and development approach now being used to investigate it’. Dr Robinson concluded his summary by stating ‘Reversing this relentless decline in dairy cow fertility, while simultaneously sustaining high yields, is not going to be easy……it is a challenge that will require great interchange of information and ideas between science, practice, research and development. The establishment of contacts and beginning of such interchange has been initiated during this [Galway, 1999] meeting and it is essential that this is sustained.’

Now, exactly 8 years later, it seemed time for those representatives from all disciplines involved in attempting to improve dairy cattle fertility to reconvene. Since 1999, the continued and well-documented decline in dairy cow fertility worldwide (Royal et al., Reference Royal, Darwash, Flint, Webb, Woolliams and Lamming2000; Lucy, Reference Lucy2001; Mayne et al., Reference Mayne, McCoy, Lennox, Mackey, Verner, Catney, McCaughey, Wylie, Kennedy and Gordon2002; Washburn et al., Reference Washburn, Silvia, Brown, McDaniel and McAllister2002; Lopez-Gatius, Reference Lopez-Gatius2003; Swedish Dairy Association, 2005) has prompted new research into diverse aspects of dairy cow reproduction. To name but a few areas and publications, these include aspects such as genetics (Royal et al., Reference Royal, Flint and Woolliams2002a and Reference Royal, Pryce, Woolliams and Flint2002b; Berry et al., Reference Berry, Buckley, Dillon, Evans, Rath and Veerkamp2003; Haile-Mariam et al., Reference Haile-Mariam, Morton and Goddard2003; Philipsson and Lindhe, Reference Philipsson and Lindhe2003; Wall et al., Reference Wall, Brotherstone, Woolliams, Banos and Coffey2003; Holmberg and Andersson-Eklund, Reference Holmberg and Andersson-Eklund2006; Weigel, Reference Weigel2006; Hayhurst et al., Reference Hayhurst, Sørensen, Royal and Løvendahl2007; Petersson et al., Reference Petersson, Berglund, Strandberg, Gustafsson, Flint, Woolliams and Royal2007; Veerkamp and Beerda, Reference Veerkamp and Beerda2007), nutrition (Kadokawa and Martin, Reference Kadokawa and Martin2006; Robinson et al., Reference Robinson, Ashworth, Rooke, Mitchell and McEvoy2006; Chagas et al., Reference Chagas, Bass, Blache, Burke, Kay, Lindsay, Lucy, Martin, Meier, Rhodes, Roche, Thatcher and Webb2007; Friggens and Newbold, Reference Friggens and Newbold2007; Wathes et al., Reference Wathes, Bourne, Cheng, Mann, Taylor and Coffey2007) Economics (Vargas et al., Reference Vargas, Groen, Herrero and Van Arendonk2002; Esslemont, Reference Esslemont2003; Santarossa et al., Reference Santarossa, Stott, Woolliams, Brotherstone, Wall and Coffey2004; McGuirk et al., Reference McGuirk, Forsyth and Dobson2007), veterinary interventions and management (Refsdal, Reference Refsdal2000; Roche et al., Reference Roche, Mackey and Diskin2000; Sheldon et al., Reference Sheldon, Noakes, Rycroft and Dobson2004; Bertoni et al., Reference Bertoni, Trevisi, Han and Bionaz2006; Diskin et al., Reference Diskin, Murphy and Sreenan2006; Drillich et al., Reference Drillich, Mahlstedt, Reichert, Tenhagen and Heuwieser2006; Mansell et al., Reference Mansell, Cameron, Taylor and Malmo2006; Mee, Reference Mee2007; Valergakis et al., Reference Valergakis, Arsenos and Banos2007). It has also prompted the development of new technology and applications in the field. The purpose of this conference and subsequent publications is to provide an update on these activities since 1999 and to provide a forum for ‘bridging the gaps’ between the different disciplines involved.

Invited and submitted theatre and poster sessions included new, up and coming presenters in addition to keynote speakers from across the globe, recognized as international experts in their field. As was the case at the 1999 meeting, the content is of direct interest to scientists, university lecturers, veterinarians, farm advisors and technical representatives working within the dairy industry as well as many dairy farmers. The following papers are a collection of research published at the conference.

Dobson et al. (Reference Dobson, Walker, Morris, Routly and Smith2008) highlight the factors predisposing to lowered fertility and disrupted oestrus in order to review ‘Why it is getting more difficult to successfully AI dairy cows’. The review by Morris and Diskin (Reference Morris and Diskin2008), considers the current knowledge on embryo growth, development and survival in the cow and how these may be influenced by changes in uterine function and the concentration of systemic progesterone. Leroy et al. (Reference Leroy, Van Soom, Opsomer and Bols2008), continues the investigations into the embryo reviewing a number of possible mechanisms linking negative energy balance to oocyte quality. Furthermore, in the event an embryo is formed after fertilization, the paper investigates whether the quality of early life is impaired. Interestingly, the pre-natal environment is known to have a large impact not only on foetal development but also health in later life and since its identification in 1986, the developmental origins of adult disease, has been applied to many areas of science. The paper by Gardner et al. (Reference Gardner, Lea and Sinclair2008) reviews specifically for the first time ‘Developmental programming of reproduction and fertility in farm animals’.

The average dairy cow survives only three lactations. This severely limits opportunities for on-farm selection of breeding cows in addition to presenting a welfare issue and causing economic loss. Wathes et al. (Reference Wathes, Brickell, Bourne, Swalia and Cheng2008) review a range of factors influencing heifer survival and fertility on commercial dairy farms. In their paper titled ‘Integration of physiological mechanisms that influence fertility in dairy cows’, Garnsworthy et al. (Reference Garnsworthy, Sinclair and Webb2008) review the potential modulating role of additional factors, such as peripheral metabolites, metabolic hormones and locally produced growth factors suggesting that progress towards restoring fertility could be made by an integrated approach that allows for interactions between physiological mechanisms that regulate metabolism and reproduction. Following parturition, contamination of the uterine lumen by bacteria is ubiquitous, and uterine health is impaired in cattle because infection persists. In their paper, Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Herath, England, Dobson, Bryant and Sheldon2008) discuss the numerous mechanisms underlying uterine disease in cattle from the whole animal to the cell. Finally, developing new research areas in the field of functional genomics, such as epigenetics, RNA interference, variable copy numbers and nutrigenomics, are discussed in the review by Beerda et al. (Reference Beerda, Wyszynska-Koko, te Pas, de Wit and Veerkamp2008), including their promising future value for dairy cow fertility.

The meeting promoted one of the major aims of the BSAS, which is to encourage fruitful exchange of information and ideas between all of those involved in the science and practice of animal production.

The organizers are very grateful for the sponsorship from BASF, Genesis Faraday, Genus ABS, Holstein UK and CIS, Merial, Pfizer, Reproduction Specialities Inc., The Stapledon Memorial Trust and World Wide Sires Ltd. We would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to bringing this excellent international conference to fruition.

References

Beerda, B, Wyszynska-Koko, J, te Pas, MFW, de Wit, AAC, Veerkamp, RF 2008. Expression profiles of genes regulating dairy cow fertility: recent findings, ongoing activities and future possibilities. Animal 2, 11581167.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Evans, RD, Rath, M, Veerkamp, RF 2003. Genetic parameters for body condition score, body weight, milk yield, and fertility estimated using random regression models. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 37043717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertoni, G, Trevisi, E, Han, X, Bionaz, M 2006. The relationship between inflammatory condition and liver activity in the puerperium and their consequences on fertility in dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 84 (suppl. 2), 84.Google Scholar
British Society of Animal Science (BSAS) 2001. Fertility in the high producing dairy cow. BSAS Occasional Publication no. 26. BSAS, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Chagas, LM, Bass, JJ, Blache, D, Burke, CR, Kay, JK, Lindsay, DR, Lucy, MC, Martin, GB, Meier, S, Rhodes, FM, Roche, JR, Thatcher, WW, Webb, R 2007. New perspectives on the roles of nutrition and metabolic priorities in the subfertility of high-producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 40224032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diskin, MG, Murphy, JJ, Sreenan, JM 2006. Embryo survival in dairy cows managed under pastoral conditions. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 297311.Google Scholar
Dobson, H, Walker, SL, Morris, MJ, Routly, JE, Smith, RF 2008. Why is it getting more difficult to successfully artificially inseminate dairy cows? Animal 2, 11041111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drillich, M, Mahlstedt, M, Reichert, U, Tenhagen, BA, Heuwieser, W 2006. Strategies to improve the therapy of retained fetal membranes in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 627635.Google Scholar
Esslemont, RJ 2003. The costs of poor fertility and what to do about reducing them. Cattle Practice 11, 237250.Google Scholar
Friggens, NC, Newbold, JR 2007. Towards a biological basis for predicting nutrient partitioning: the dairy cow as an example. Animal 1, 8797.Google Scholar
Gardner, DS, Lea, RG, Sinclair, KD 2008. Developmental programming of reproduction and fertility: What is the evidence? Animal 2, 11281134.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, PC, Sinclair, KD, Webb, R 2008. Integration of physiological mechanisms that influence fertility in dairy cows. Animal 2, 11441152.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M, Morton, JM, Goddard, ME 2003. Estimates of genetic parameters for fertility traits of Australian Holstein-Friesian cattle. Animal Science 76, 3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayhurst, C, Sørensen, MK, Royal, MD, Løvendahl, P 2007. Metabolic regulation in Danish bull calves and the relationship to the fertility of their female offspring. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 39093916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, M, Andersson-Eklund, L 2006. Quantitative trait loci affecting fertility and calving traits in Swedish dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 36643671.Google Scholar
Kadokawa, H, Martin, GB 2006. A new perspective on management of reproduction in dairy cows: the need for detailed metabolic information, an improved selection index and extended lactation. Journal of Reproduction and Development 52, 161168.Google Scholar
Leroy, JLMR, Van Soom, A, Opsomer, G, Bols, PEJ 2008. The consequences of metabolic changes in high yielding dairy cows on oocyte and embryo quality. Animal 2, 11201127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez-Gatius, F 2003. Is fertility declining in dairy cattle? A retrospective study in northeastern Spain. Theriogenology 60, 8999.Google Scholar
Lucy, MC 2001. Reproductive loses in high producing dairy cattle: where will it end? Journal of Dairy Science 84, 12771293.Google Scholar
Mansell, PD, Cameron, AR, Taylor, DP, Malmo, J 2006. Induction of parturition in dairy cattle and its effects on health and subsequent lactation and reproductive performance. Australian Veterinary Journal 84, 312316.Google Scholar
Mayne, CS, McCoy, MA, Lennox, SD, Mackey, DR, Verner, M, Catney, DC, McCaughey, WJ, Wylie, ARG, Kennedy, BW, Gordon, FJ 2002. Fertility of dairy cows in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Record 150, 707713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuirk, BJ, Forsyth, R, Dobson, H 2007. Economical cost of difficult calvings in the UK dairy herd. Veterinary Record 161, 685687.Google Scholar
Mee, JF 2007. The role of the veterinarian in bovine fertility management on modern dairy farms. Theriogenology 68 (suppl. 1), S257S265.Google Scholar
Morris, D, Diskin, M 2008. Effect of progesterone on embryo survival. Animal 2, 11121119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersson, KJ, Berglund, B, Strandberg, E, Gustafsson, H, Flint, APF, Woolliams, JA, Royal, MD 2007. Genetic analysis of luteal activity measures postpartum in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 427434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipsson, J, Lindhe, B 2003. Experiences of including reproduction and health traits in Scandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes. Livestock Production Science 83, 99112.Google Scholar
Refsdal, AO 2000. To treat or not to treat: a proper use of hormones and antibiotics. Animal Reproduction Science 60–61, 109119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, JJ, Ashworth, CJ, Rooke, JA, Mitchell, LM, McEvoy, TG 2006. Nutrition and fertility in ruminant livestock. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 259276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, JF, Mackey, D, Diskin, MD 2000. Reproductive management of postpartum cows. Animal Reproductive Science 60–61, 703712.Google Scholar
Royal, MD, Darwash, AO, Flint, APF, Webb, R, Woolliams, JA, Lamming, GE 2000. Declining fertility in dairy cattle: changes in endocrine and traditional measures of fertility. Animal Science 70, 487501.Google Scholar
Royal, MD, Flint, AP, Woolliams, JA 2002a. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among endocrine and traditional fertility traits and production traits in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 958967.Google Scholar
Royal, MD, Pryce, JE, Woolliams, JA, Flint, AP 2002b. The genetic relationship between commencement of luteal activity and calving interval, body condition score, production, and linear type traits in Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 30713080.Google Scholar
Santarossa, JM, Stott, AW, Woolliams, JA, Brotherstone, S, Wall, E, Coffey, MP 2004. An economic evaluation of long-term sustainability in the dairy sector. Animal Science 79, 315325.Google Scholar
Sheldon, IM, Noakes, DE, Rycroft, AN, Dobson, H 2004. Effect of intrauterine administration of oestradiol on postpartum uterine bacterial infection in cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 81, 1323.Google Scholar
Swedish Dairy Association, 2005. Husdjursstatistik (Cattle Statistics) 2005. Svensk Mjölk, Box 1146, 631 80 Eskilstuna, Sweden.Google Scholar
Valergakis, GE, Arsenos, G, Banos, G 2007. Comparison of artificial insemination and natural service cost effectiveness in dairy cattle. Animal 1, 293300.Google Scholar
Vargas, B, Groen, AF, Herrero, M, Van Arendonk, JAM 2002. Economic values for production and functional traits in Holstein cattle of Costa Rica. Livestock Production Science 75, 101116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Beerda, B 2007. Genetics and genomics to improve fertility in high producing dairy cows. Theriogenology 68, S266S273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, E, Brotherstone, S, Woolliams, JA, Banos, G, Coffey, MP 2003. Genetic evaluation of fertility using direct and correlated traits. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 40934102.Google Scholar
Washburn, SP, Silvia, WJ, Brown, CH, McDaniel, BT, McAllister, AJ 2002. Trends in reproductive performance in southeastern Holstein and Jersey DHI herds. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 244251.Google Scholar
Wathes, DC, Bourne, N, Cheng, Z, Mann, GE, Taylor, VJ, Coffey, MP 2007. Multiple correlation analyses of metabolic and endocrine profiles with fertility in primiparous and multiparous cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 13101325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wathes, DC, Brickell, JS, Bourne, NE, Swalia, A, Cheng, Z 2008. Factors influencing heifer survival and fertility on commercial dairy farms. Animal 2, 11351143.Google Scholar
Weigel, KA 2006. Prospects for improving reproductive performance through genetic selection. Animal Reproduction Science 96, 323330.Google Scholar
Williams, EJ, Herath, S, England, GCW, Dobson, H, Bryant, CE, Sheldon, IM 2008. Effect of Escherichia coli infection of the bovine uterus from the whole animal to the cell. Animal 2, 11531157.Google Scholar