Incidence of fertility and postpartum uterine health disorders with their genetic and non-genetic determinants in Karan fries cattle

Introduction

Karan Fries cattle is a very important breed as it offer a balance of high milk production, adaptability, and resistance to diseases, making them a valuable breed for dairy farming in India and other regions with similar environmental conditions. In 1980, Holstein Friesian Bull (Bos taurus) and Tharparkar cow (Bos indicus) were crossed to create Karan Fries crossbred dairy cattle, which were then selected at ICAR-NDRI, Karnal. As of right now, selection is mostly dependent on 305DMY, and functional features are not given enough weight in the selection criteria (Gonge et al., 2024) [6] . Higher production performance is determined by both the animal's superiority in terms of functional features and its function, which determines the dairy cattle's stronger stayability in the herd. Functional trait such as fertility, health and longevity are essential for improving dairy herd efficiency by reducing cost associated with disease, reproductive failure and involuntary culling (Miglior et al., 2017) [9] . These traits primarily include uterine and udder health, female reproductive traits, and calving traits. Fertility performance in dairy cattle is influenced by multiple interacting factors, including management practice, environmental stressor and postpartum uterine health, which ultimately affect herd productivity and profitability (Crowe et al., 2018) [4] and also both genetic and non-genetic elements, making it one of the most important factors affecting the biological and functional performance of the animal production system (Feugang et al., 2009) [5] . Among the many factors influencing fertility, management is crucial for successful production and reproduction, which is a crucial component of contemporary dairy practices. To maintain the best genetic gain, organized selection strategies should be used (Mumtaz et al., 2021) [12] . The study's data came from the Animal Genetics and Breeding Division, Livestock Production and Management Section, Artificial Breeding Research Center (ABRC), calving reports, health and general treatment registers, and history-cum pedigree sheets/registers. 3165 lactation records from 965 cows sired by 159 sires were used. The information covered a twenty-four-year span, from 1993 to 2016. In this study, cows that completed at least one lactation and up to six lactations were taken into account.

Classification of Data

Functional trait data were categorized by genetic group, parity order, calving period, and season of calving.

Calving season

The Karnal region's current climate was taken into consideration while dividing the entire year into four seasons (winter, summer, rainy, and autumn). The corresponding seasons were then coded as shown in Table 1.

Parity

After the data was classified and coded, the impact of parity on performance was analyzed. The accessible production and reproduction sheets showed the parity order up to the most recent lactation. However, because there were fewer animals above fifth parity in this study, fifth parity and above were grouped together.

Period

The study's data came from a 24-year span (1993 to 2016). Since the farm's management procedures changed over several years, any trait may be significantly impacted by the cumulative effect of these changes over a five to six-year period. In order to investigate this effect, the calving period was divided into the following groups:

Genetic clusters/groups

The classification was based on the degree of Holstein Friesian blood inheritance in Karan Fries cows in order to investigate the impact of genetic group. Table 3 provides a thorough description of the classification.

Impact of genetic and non-genetic factors on various functional traits

The Chi-Squares method was used to examine the effects on different non-genetic parameters on functional features, including as season, period, parity of calving, and genetic group of Karan Fries (Snedecor and Cochran, 1994) [22] .

Σ(O-E) 2

Where, O = Observed frequencies E = Expected frequencies Expected frequencies were calculated as follows:-

Where, E ij = Expected frequency in the jth column and ith row R i . = Total number of rows C j . = Total number of column GT = Grand total

Logistic regression method analysis for functional traits

Finding genetic and non-genetic factors impacting different functional qualities in dairy animals using traditional analysis, which assumes residual error normalcy, is extremely challenging. In situations when the response variable is binary or discontinuous, logistic regression can be useful for both predicting the answer and investigating the relationship between the dependent and explanatory variables. Instead of using the proportion of data, the logistic regression approach uses odds. The chances are only the proportion of the two conceivable outcomes that are mutually exclusive. The proportion for the second mutually exclusive outcome is (1-p) if p is the proportion for the first outcome;

ODDS = p/(1-p)

The logistic regression model uses a linear function to connect the log of the odds to the explanatory variable.

Pi is between 0 and 1, and Zi is between-∞ and + ∞. The two requirements for a probability model are satisfied since Pi and Zi have a non-linear relationship. The SAS 9.3 version of the following dichotomous logistic regression model was applied:

Where, P = Incidence probability β˳ = The intercept from the linear regression equation

Results and Discussion

The frequency of the functional trait indications Tables 4-5 demonstrate the incidence of functional trait indicators in connection to different genetic and non-genetic factors as well as the chi-squares analysis results demonstrating the impact of different genetic and nongenetic factors on indicator characteristics. The proportion was used to measure the incidence of the functional trait indicators.

Incidence of fertility health indicator traits-Anoestrous and Repeat breeding

According to the current study on fertility health indicator features, the proportion of incidence was 0.22 for anoestrous and 0.06 for repeat breeding. In statistical study, the season period and parity of calving had a highly significant (p<0.01) impact on those indicator features, however the genetic group had a non-significant influence. Balasundaram (2008) [1] and Sharma (2011) [19] observed a nearly substantial occurrence of anoestrous in Karan fries, while Sharma and Luktuke (1983) [21] reported it in crossbred cattle. A review of the literature showed that the incidence of recurrent breeding in crossbreds varied between 0.07 and 0.28 (Kaikin et al., 1983; Chourewar et al., 2002; Kulkarn et al., 2002; Selvaraj, 2003) [7,3,8,18] . According to Urade (2001) [23] , 8.08 percent of crossbred cows experienced recurrent breeding.

Season

The current results (Tables 45) showed that season had a substantial (p<0.01) impact on the occurrence of repeat breeding and anoestrous. Compared to other seasons, autumnal calves had the lowest prevalence of reproductive issues. In the fall, it was 0.17 for anoestrous and 0.05 for repeat breeding. Chourewar et al. (2002) [3] discovered that the incidence of recurrent breeding in crossbred cows was significantly influenced by the calving season. In a similar vein, Balasundaram (2008) [1] and Sharma (2011) [19] found that season had a major impact on the frequency of recurrent breeding and anoestrous in Karan Fries cows.

Period

Repeat breeding and anoestrous were significantly (p<0.01) impacted by the calving period. Repeated breeding became more common between 1993 and 2007. Anoestrous was found to be most common between 2002 and 2004 (0.36) and least common between 1993 and 1995 (0.07).However, Balasundaram (2008) [1] found that period had no discernible impact on anoestrus and recurrent breeding.

Parity

According to the current study's results (Tables 45), primiparous cows had lower estimates of incidence (0.17 and 0.05) for anoestrous and repeat breeding than pluriparous cows (0.22-0.28 and 0.051-0.08). Over the parities, no discernible pattern was found. Similar to the current findings, Sharma and Luktuke (1983) [21] found a substantial difference and a rising tendency over the parities for anoestrus in Friesian-Haryana cows. According to Chourewar et al. (2002) [3] , parity had no discernible impact on crossbred cow repeat breeding. According to Balasundaram (2008) [1] , parity has no discernible impact on recurrent breeding and anoestrus in Karan Fries cattle.

Genetic Group

Genetic categories had no discernible impact on the prevalence of fertility issues, according to statistical analysis of the data. Similarly, for various genetic groups of Karan Fries cattle, Balasundaram (2008) [1] and Sharma (2011) [19] found non-significant variations in the incidence of anoestrous and repeat breeding. However, Kulkarni et al. (2002) [8] and Selvaraj et al. (2003) [18] found that the incidence of recurrent breeding in cows varied significantly among genetic groupings.

Incidence of post-calving uterine health indicator traits-Retention of placenta (ROP)

Out of 3165 calvings, 584 parturitions had placenta retention (ROP), indicating a proportion of 0.18 in Karan Fries cows (Table 45). In crossbreds (Satyapal, 2003; Balasundaram et al., 2011a) [17,2] and Karan Fries (Sharma, 2011) [19] , the incidence of retained placenta was found to be 0.27 and 0.25, respectively. However, Mukherjee (1989) [10] found a decreased (0.15) prevalence of placenta retention in Karan Fries cattle.

Season

Seasonal variations in the herd's incidence of placenta retention (ROP) ranged from 0.13 to 0.23. The incidence estimates were greater during the rainy season (0.23) and lower during the fall season (0.13). The incidence of ROP varies statistically considerably (p<0.001) between the calving seasons. According to earlier studies (Pandit et al., 1981; Saini et al., 1988; Mukherjee, 1989; Satyapal, 2003) [13,15,10,17] , the season of calving significantly affected the incidence of retained placenta in crossbred and Karan Fries cows. However, Balasundaram et al. (20011a) [2] and Sharma (2011) [19] found that the season of calving had no discernible impact on the incidence of placenta retention in Karan Fries cattle. Satyapal (2003) [17] discovered that in Karan Fries cows, the prevalence of retained placenta was greater during the summer calving season.

Period

The incidence of placenta retention peaked between 1996 and 2001 at 0.25, whereas it was 0.18 and 0.14 between 2002 and 2008 and 2014 and 2016, respectively. Over the period, it displayed a nearly declining trend. Additionally, statistical analysis showed that the calving period had a significantly significant effect (p<0.01). Similarly, Mukherjee (1989) [10] , Balasundaram et al. (20011a) [2] , and Sharma (2011) [19] revealed that the incidence of retained placenta in Karan Fries cows was strongly influenced by the time of calving. Balasundaram (2008) [1] noted a declining pattern of incidence over the period, which is consistent with the current data. Nonetheless, Mukherjee (1989) [10] noted an upward tendency in Karan Fries cattle.

Parity

According to the current findings, primiparous cows had the lowest prevalence of placenta retention (0.13). In contrast, the incidence proportion for pluriparous cows was 0.21 in second parity, 0.20 in third 0.25 in fourth parity, and 0.23 in fifth parity. It was discovered that variations in the incidence proportion of ROP among the parities were significantly significant (p<0.01). The incidence of retained placenta in crossbred cows was also found to be significantly impacted by parity of calving, with a higher incidence in later lactations and a lower incidence during early lactation (Pandit et al., 1981; Saini et al., 1988; Mukherjee, 1989; Satyapal, 2003; Sharma, 2010) [13, 15, 10, 17 19] . According to research by Kaikini et al. (1983) [7] and Balasundaram et al. (2011a) [2] , the incidence of retained placenta in various crossbred cattle was not significantly affected by parity.

Genetic group

The genetic group did not, however, significantly affect the incidence of ROP, according to the statistical study. F1 and higher crosses had a lower incidence of ROP (0.16) than interbred cows (0.19). The current findings were consistent with those of Chourewar et al. (2002) [3] and Balasundaram et al. (20011a) [2] , who found that genetic group had no discernible impact on the incidence of placenta retention in crossbred and Karan Fries cows.

Impact of various non-genetic factors on incidence of post calving uterine health and fertility indicators in terms of ODDS values

The results of the multivariate logistic regression showed that the rainy season was when repeat breeding, anestrous, and placenta retention were most common. As indicated in Table 6 below, it also showed a greater ODDS ratio in favor of normal fertility and post-calving uterine health in animals calved during the fall season.

Period

In terms of repeat breeding, anestrous, and placenta retention at various times, the incidence of normal fertility and post-calving uterine health ranged from 5.086 to 1.00, 2.004 to 0.301, and 1.709 to 0.523. Repeated breeding and anestrous were found to be most common between 2002 and 2004, whereas placenta retention was most common between 1996 and 1998.

Parity

The incidence of repeat breeding, anestrous, and placenta retention were all strongly influenced by parity; second parity had the highest incidence of repeat breeding and anestrous, whereas fourth parity had the highest incidence of placenta retention.

Genetic cluster/group and stage of lactation:

Fertility and post-calving uterine health characteristics were not significantly impacted by genetic group or lactation stage. As demonstrated in Table 7, the Wald chi-square estimates for various non-genetic parameters showed that parity and calving period had a highly significant (p<0.01) impact on all fertility and post-calving uterine health features (repeat breeding, anestrous, and placenta retention). The season of calving has a highly significant (p<0.01) impact on anestrous and placenta retention and a considerable (p<0.05) impact on repeat breeding.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors are indebted to Director, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal, also Head of Animal Genetics and Breeding for providing all possible kind of assistance for conducting present piece of work also to the in addition Ministry of Tribal Affair for financially supporting a first author in form of fellowship

References

1. Balasundaram B. Influence of genetic and non-genetic factors on incidence of reproduction disorder in Karan Fries cows [M.V.Sc. thesis]. Karnal: NDRI; 2008.
2. Balasundaram B, Gupta AK, Dongre VB, Mohanty TK, Sharma PC, Khate K, et al. Influence of genetic and non-genetic factors on incidence of calving abnormalities in Karan Fries cows. Indian J Anim Res. 2011;45:26-31.
3. Chourewar S, Ali SZ, Kuralkar SV. Incidence of reproductive disorders in crossbred cows. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2002;55(5):313-315.
4. Crowe MA, Hostens M, Opsomer G. Reproductive management in dairy cows-the future. Theriogenology. 2018.
5. Feugang JM, Abdullah K, Grier PP, Chen L, Mehta T, Hirani K, et al. Two-stage genome-wide association study identifies integrin beta 5 as having a potential role in bull fertility. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:176.
6. Gonge DS, Gupta AK, Pandey A, Ratwan P, Yadav JS, Suman A, et al. Estimation of genetic gain for production and reproduction traits in Holstein Friesian crossbred: assessment and simulation. Ann For Res. 2024;67(1):397-409.
7. Kaikini AS, Chikalikar GK, Dindokar CV. Reproductive disorders in Holstein × Gir F1 crossbred cows. Indian J Anim Sci. 1983;53(5):556-558.
8. Kulkarni MD, Khanvikar AV, Bansod RS. Incidence of reproductive disorders in indigenous and crossbred cows in an organized farm. Indian Vet J. 2002;79:11961197.
9. Miglior F, Fleming A, Malchiodi F, Brito LF, Martin P, Baes CF. A 100-year review: identification and genetic selection of economically important traits in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100:10251-10271.
10. Mukherjee K. Genetic studies on certain diseases in Karan Fries cattle using computer database [M.Sc. thesis]. Kurukshetra: Kurukshetra University; 1989.
11. Mukherjee K, Tomar SS, Sadana DK. Genetic studies on udder problems in Karan Fries herd. Indian Vet J. 1993;70(2):121-124.
12. Mumtaz S, Mukherjee A, Pathak P, Parveen K. Effects of inbreeding on performance traits in Karan Fries crossbred cattle. Indian J Anim Sci. 2021;91(5):396400.
13. Pandit RK, Shukla SP, Parekh HKB. Incidence of retained placenta in Gir cattle. Indian J Anim Sci. 1981;14:142-150.
14. Ruegg PL. A 100-year review: mastitis detection, management, and prevention. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(12):10381-10397.
15. Saini MS, Khanna AS, Chopra SC. Incidence of retention of placenta, its treatment and subsequent fertility in crossbred dairy cattle. Indian J Anim Prod Manag. 1988;4(2):61-65.
16. SAS. SAS/STAT 9.3 User's Guide. Cary (NC): SAS Publishing; 2011. p. 5136.
17. Satyapal. Investigation on health disorders in dairy cattle and buffaloes during pre and post partum period [Ph.D. thesis]. Karnal: NDRI; 2003.
18. Selvaraj P, Kumar H, Bhist GS. Incidence and causes of repeat breeding in crossbred dairy cows: a retrospective study. Indian J Anim Reprod. 2003;24(2):138-141.
19. Sharma PC, Gupta AK, Mohanty TK, Chakravarty AK, Singh A, Sharma AK, et al. Genetic analysis of female fertility health traits in Karan Fries (Holstein crossbred) cows. Indian J Anim Reprod. 2011;32(2):19-22.
20. Sharma AK. Studies on prevalence and therapeutics of mastitis in dairy animals [M.V.Sc. thesis]. Palampur: H.P.K.V.; 2000.
21. Sharma L, Luktuke D. Reproductive performance of Nagauri cattle. Indian J Anim Sci. 1983;53:1019-1029.
22. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8th ed. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press; 1994.
23. Urade GK. Incidence of reproductive disorders in pure Sahiwal and crossbred cows in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Indian Vet J. 2001;78:741-742.