Pre-partum body condition score as a predictor of post-calving productivity and reproductive efficiency in Murrah buffaloes

Introduction

Body condition scoring at different phases of production and reproduction helps to understand the immediate appraisal of animal's condition. Body condition scoring is a very easy technique, economical and produces an estimation of body energy reserves especially during peripartum period that is reasonably practical. Body condition score has high influence on animal health, production and reproduction (Godara et al. 2016) [14] . Dairy animal health, production and reproduction could be considered as pillars of economic efficiency of the farm. The peripartum period in dairy animals is very critical in terms of their health, efficiency, performance and welfare. Because of the blend of BCS, body weight and milk production, a dairy animal's BCS profiles are considered a mirror for the lactation profile (Roche et al. 2006) [30] . Therefore, BCS is an indirect tool to analyse the economic status of the dairy business. Cavestany and co-workers (2005) [9] observed that milk production was negatively correlated with BCS. Also Patel et al. (2018) [21] studied the effect of pre-calving BCS on milk production of Murrah buffaloes and reported that milk yield in all the buffaloes with different BCS increased from 45 th to 60 th day of lactation and highest total milk yield and the maximum BCS loss was seen in buffaloes with more than 4 BCS. Gyorkos et al. (2001) [15] reported the optimal body condition score before calving in heifers would be 3.5-3.9 to achieve higher milk production during the first lactation. Pramanik and Koul (2002) concluded that BCS at calving was positively correlated to milk yield during early lactation whereas Delfino et al. (2018) [12] found no difference in milk yield between higher and lower BCS buffaloes. Most of the currently available research reports on the impact of BCS and postpartum BCS are from advanced countries with a temperate climate and predominantly on Friesian cows. However no enough reports were found regarding pre-partum BCS effect on production and reproduction traits of buffaloes. Hence, a study was carried out with the objective to study the effect of pre-partum BCS on production and reproduction parameters.

Materials and Methods

The present study on Murrah buffaloes was conducted at Cattle and Buffalo Farm (Livestock Production and Management Section), ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar (Bareilly), Uttar Pradesh, India. For the study 68 advance pregnant Murrah buffaloes as per the availability from February 2019 to December 2020 were considered and body condition scores were recorded from 35 days before calving up to 90 days post-partum at weekly intervals. Body condition score of the buffaloes was recorded using the body condition scoring chart for Murrah buffaloes given by Anitha et al. (2011) [1] in a 1 to 5 scale using 0.5 increments. Scoring was done at weekly intervals pre-calving (-35, -28, -21, -14, -7), on the day of calving (0d) and post-calving up to 90 days (+7, +14, +21, +28, +35, +42, +49, +56, +63, +70, +77, +84, +91). The obtained data of BCS prior to calving was used to classify buffaloes into groups (1.≤ 3.5 BCS and 2.>3.5 BCS). All the buffaloes under study were housed under uniform feeding and management conditions. The data pertaining to milk production and reproduction was procured from the milking unit and farm records, respectively. The various reproductive parameters were recorded from the registers obtained from the Buffalo farm of ICAR-IVRI. Data was analyzed, using ANOVA described by Snedecor and Cochran (1994) to study the impact of pre-partum BCS on Production performance.

Results and Discussion

Body Condition Score

The overall mean body condition score (BCS) of buffaloes during the peripartum period ranged from 2.56 ± 0.04 to 3.53 ± 0.04, with the highest BCS observed one week prior to calving and the lowest on the 56th day postpartum. Buffaloes with >3.5 BCS showed an initial mean of 3.36 ± 0.05 on day -35, reaching a peak of 3.89 ± 0.07 before calving and declining to 2.73 ± 0.08 by the end of the second month of lactation. Significant differences (P < 0.01) between <3.5 and >3.5 BCS groups were observed during the pre-partum period and on the day of calving, similar to the findings of Delfino et al. (2018) [12] . During the postpartum period, significant differences (P < 0.01/0.05) were observed only during the second month of lactation (days 42-63), likely due to lactation stress and peak milk production demands. In general, BCS declined during the first two months after calving due to mobilization of body reserves to meet energy requirements for milk production, followed by gradual stabilization and improvement, which agrees with earlier reports in buffaloes and cattle (Rao and Anitha, 2013; Banos et al., 2004; Wankhade et al., 2019) [23,3,29] . Buffaloes with <3.5 pre-partum BCS recovered their initial body condition by 90 days postpartum, whereas those with >3.5 BCS recovered more slowly and did not reach their initial BCS within the same period, possibly due to lower feed intake and less efficient energy utilization during early lactation.

Effect of pre-partum BCS on production performance

Table 2 illustrates the data on peak yield, days to attain PY, 90 days milk yield, previous lactation milk yield, previous 305 days milk yield and previous lactation length. It was observed that peak yield (PY) and 90 days milk yield (90DMY) were 9.75±0.41 and 673.06±31.98 kg and 9.47±0.34 and 661.32±23.14 kg in ≤3.5 BCS buffaloes and >3.5 BCS buffaloes, respectively but no significant difference was seen. The continuous gain in BCS during the dry period in ≤3.5 BCS might have yielded slightly higher PY and 90DMY. Changes in BCS and milk yield are physiologically related as opined by Loker et al. (2012) [16] . The results of the present study were in agreement with Mouffolk et al. (2013) who observed higher MY in cattle with low pre calving BCS than in higher BCS cattle. BCS and milk yield are in negative correlation and high yielding cattle have generally low BCS (Mushtaq et al. 2012). The results were also similar to the reports of Bayram et al. (2012) [4] who observed that actual milk yield and 305 day milk yield of thin cows (BCS <3.00) were significantly higher than those of moderate (BCS ≥3.00) cows (P<0.01). Further Mishra et al. (2016) [18] reported that body condition score during dry period should be 3.25-3.50 and BCS >3.5 was detrimental to milk production. Hence as per the present study the higher pre partum BCS in group 2 could have reduced the milk yield due to higher mobilization and loss of body condition during calving. In contrary Patel et al. (2018) [21] reported higher 90DMY in buffaloes with higher BCS (>4) than in other lower BCS buffaloes. Peak yield during the study was achieved slightly earlier in >3.5 BCS buffaloes than ≤3.5BCS buffaloes without any significant difference and the findings were similar to that of Bayram et al. (2012) [4] wherein pre-calving BCS did not have any effect on days to attain peak yield. The lactation milk yield, 305 days milk yield and lactation length of previous lactation was found to be slightly higher in ≤3.5 BCS buffaloes (Table 2). However these parameters were not influenced by pre-calving BCS. Buffaloes belonging to ≤3.5 pre-partum BCS were milked about 5 days more in their previous lactation than the other group and accordingly higher milk yield was recorded in 305 days and previous lactation, though the difference was not statistically significant. This may be due to high milk yield potential animals are inclined to utilize the body fat reserves and yield higher for a longer period. Hence reduce their body condition during the successive dry period. In parallel to this study, Bouska et al. (2008) [6] observed highest milk yield (7,345 kg) in cows with low BCS (≤3.5) during dry period. Further during the experiment period all the buffaloes were group fed with uniform greens and concentrates during the pre-partum period and individual feeding of higher BCS buffaloes was not possible. Under group feeding system certain buffaloes could be dominant over few docile ones and might have resulted in lower feed intake in higher BCS buffaloes affecting their condition and performance.

Effect of pre-partum BCS on reproductive performance

Post partum interval to estrus (PPIE) for <3.5 BCS and >3.5 BCS buffaloes were 121.09±11.16 and 133.79±18.32 days, respectively, without any significant difference ( table 3). These results were consistent with Buckley et al. (2003) and Contreras et al. (2004), who inferred that pre-calving BCS was not associated with PPIE. Mouffok et al. (2013) expressed effect of BCS on PPIE and reported higher loss of body condition lead to longer PPIE. The results obtained in the present study were higher than that of Anitha et al. (2011) [1] and Patel et al. (2018) [21] , who observed lower PPIE (46 -80 days) in Murrah buffaloes. It was observed that BCS had no effect on the PPIE in the present study. Numerical increase of PPIE (days) in higher BCS class could be attributed to the higher BCS loss at calving, low energy balance, slow regain of lost body condition after calving, insufficient energy resource, inactive ovum or late ovulation due to lower LH hormone (Butler, 2000) [8] . It was observed during the post partum period that shorter SP was achieved in buffaloes having <3.5 pre-partum BCS than higher BCS class, but, the results were non-significant. Service periods were 145.1±17.98 and 146.83±21.43 in <3.5 BCS and >3.5 BCS buffaloes, respectively. It has been observed that service period of Murrah buffaloes was 169.22±15.96 days (Mishra et al., 2016) [18] . Higher service period had been recorded in the present study as compared to previous studies (Anitha et al., 2011 and Patel et al., 2018) [1,21] indicating that these buffaloes could have been under physiological stress of parturition or decreased feed intake. Balamurugan (2020) [2] had reported 131.12±6.24 days of service period in Murrah buffaloes. The service period was not affected by pre-partum BCS in the present study and it was similar to the reports of Selk et al. (1988) and Curtis et al. (1985) [26,11] . It was found that <3.5 BCS buffaloes had lower number of services per conception (1.43±0.13) as compared to >3.5 BCS buffaloes (1.58±0.26), but, the values did not differ significantly. Similarly, Mouffok et al. (2013) observed 1.66±0.10 and 1.81±0.15 number of services per conception in 2.75-3.5 and >3.5 BCS Montbeliad cows, respectively, but, no significant variation was seen. Bayram et al. (2012) [4] reported significantly (P<0.05) lower services per conception (1.52±0.16) in cows with lesser BCS (<3.0) at calving than in e•3.0 BCS (1.89±0.11). It was found that <3.5 BCS buffaloes had lower number of services per conception (1.43±0.13) as compared to >3.5 BCS buffaloes (1.58±0.26), but, the values did not differ significantly. Similarly, Mouffok et al. (2013) observed 1.66±0.10 and 1.81±0.15 number of services per conception in 2.75-3.5 and >3.5 BCS Montbeliad cows, respectively, but, no significant variation was seen. Bayram et al. (2012) [4] reported significantly (P<0.05) lower services per conception (1.52±0.16) in cows with lesser BCS (<3.0) at calving than in >3.0 BCS (1.89±0.11). The overall conception to first service was found to be 62.26 percent, while, in <3.5 BCS and >3.5 BCS buffaloes, it was 61.76 and 63.16 percent, respectively. It was difficult to relate conception rate with BCS. Markusfeld and co-workers (1997) did not observe any relationship between calving BCS and first service conception rate. Similarly, Wathes et al. (2007) [30] stated a negative association between BCS at calving and probability of conception at first service. The breeding efficiency of buffalo herd were 83.46±2.15 and 86.37±3.34 in <3.5 BCS and >3.5 BCS buffaloes, respectively. The values were not statistically significant and, hence, effect of BCS on breeding efficiency could not be determined. As the breeding efficiency calculation involves calving interval, the variation observed could be justified. The Age at First Service (AFS) was found to be 891.19±52.67 and 817.05±25.85 days in >3.5 BCS and <3.5 BCS buffaloes, respectively. Though, AFS was slightly lower in <3.5 BCS class, there was no significant difference between the two classes. The Age at First Successful Service (AFSS) was also reported to be much earlier in <3.5 BCS class (905.53±27.63days) than in >3.5 BCS class (967.81±68.43), while, statistically significant difference was not observed between the two means. Age at first calving mean±SE was 1226.72±27.80 days in <3.5 BCS class which were lower than 1278.09±65.23 days in >3.5 BCS class without any significant difference between the two. It was observed that non-significantly higher dry period was recorded in <3.5 BCS class (160.13±14.49 days) as compared to >3.5 BCS class (158.75±25.76 days). It was observed that non-significantly higher calving interval was recorded in <3.5 BCS class (454.94±15.71 days) as compared to >3.5 BCS class (447.88±26.87 days). The calving interval was reported to be 495.83±18.93 days in Murrah buffaloes (Mishra et al., 2016) [18] . These observations were comparable to the results already published by Sharma (2012) and Boopathi et al. (2019) on Murrah buffaloes. Non-significant variations in the reproductive parameters may be attributed to their innate reproductive capacity and uniform nutrition and management that was followed during the study period under prevailing environmental conditions. Hence, it was evident that pre-partum BCS did not influence the reproductive traits in Murrah buffaloes during the present study.

Conclusion

However, the findings did not show any significant effect of pre-partum BCS on production and reproductive performance, it would be highly recommended that ideal pre-partum BCS in buffaloes during advanced stages be maintained below 3.5 and avoid NEB and higher body condition loss. Body condition scoring is widely recommended practice in dairy animal management and it could be beneficial to separately manage the buffaloes during the advancement of pregnancy based on pre-calving body condition score. However, further studies should examine whether the difference in BCS loss could be attributed to pre-partum BCS or the insufficient nutrition due to group feeding.

References

1. Anitha A, Rao KS, Suresh J, Moorthy PS, Reddy YK. A body condition score (BCS) system in Murrah buffaloes. Buffalo Bull. 2011;30(1):79-99.
2. Balamurugan B. Studies on age at puberty, service period, gestation period and calving interval in Vrindavani, Tharparkar cattle and Murrah buffalo. Pharma Innov J. 2020;9(2):186-190.
3. Banos G, Brotherstone S, Coffey MC. Evaluation of body condition score measured throughout lactation as an indicator of fertility in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2004;87:2669-2676.
4. Bayram B, Aksakal V, Akbulut O. Effect of body condition score on reproduction and milk yield traits of Swedish Red and White cows. J Anim Plant Sci. 2012;22(3):545-551.
5. Boopathi V, Prasad S, Kumaresan A, Manimaran A, Prakash MA. Environmental factors affecting reproductive performance of Murrah buffaloes. Biol Rhythm Res. 2019;50(1):1-7.
6. Bouska J, Stipkova M, Pytloun P, Pytloun J, Kubesova M. Relationships among body condition score, milk yield and sires' breeding value. Czech J Anim Sci. 2008;53(11):453-461.
7. Buckley F, O'Sullivan K, Mee JF, Evans RD, Dillon P. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight and reproduction. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86(7):23082319.
8. Butler WR. Nutritional interactions with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Anim Reprod Sci. 2000;60:449-457.
9. Cavestany D, Blanc JE, Kulcsar M, Uriarte G, Chilibroste P, Meikle A, et al. Studies of transition cows under pasture-based system: metabolic profiles. J Vet Med A. 2005;52(1):1-7.
10. Contreras LL, Ryan CM, Overton TR. Effects of dry cow grouping strategy and prepartum BCS on performance and health. J Dairy Sci. 2004;87(2):517523.
11. Curtis CR, Erb HN, Sniffen CJ, Smith RD, Kronfeld DS. Path analysis of dry period nutrition and reproductive disorders in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci. 1985;68:2347-2360.
12. Delfino NC, de Aragao Bulcao LF, Alba HDR, da Silva Oliveira MX, de Queiroz FPS, de Carvalho GGP, et al. Influence of body condition score at calving on metabolic status and production in Murrah buffaloes. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018;31(11):1756-1765.
13. Gheise NJE, Riasi A, Zare Shahneh A, Celi P, Ghoreishi SM. Effect of pre-calving BCS and previous lactation on production and metabolism. Ital J Anim Sci. 2017;16(3):474-483.
14. Godara AS, Tomar AKS, Dutt T, Patel BHM, Kumari A, Singh M, et al. Effect of post-partum body condition score on performance in Tharparkar cattle. Int J Livest Res. 2016;7(4):166-171.
15. Gyorkos I, Bader E, Muzsek A, Szili J, Bader P, Kertesz T. Effect of body condition before calving on milk production. Allattenyeszteses Takarmanyozas. 2001;50:471-473.
16. Loker S, Bastin C, Miglior F, Sewalem A, Schaeffer LR, Jamrozik J, et al. Genetic and environmental relationships between BCS and milk production. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95(1):410-419.
17. Markusfeld D, Galon N, Ezra E. Body condition score, health, yield and fertility in dairy cows. Vet Rec. 1997;141:67-72.
18. Mishra S, Kumari K, Dubey A. Body condition scoring of dairy cattle: a review. Res Rev J Vet Sci. 2016;2(1):58-65.
19. Mouffok CE, Madani T, Semara L, Ayache N, Rahal A. Correlation between BCS, metabolites, milk yield and quality. Pak Vet J. 2013;33(2):191-194.
20. Mushtaq A, Qureshi MS, Khan S, Habib G, Swati ZA, Rahman SU. Body condition score as marker of milk yield. J Anim Plant Sci. 2012;22(3):169-173.
21. Patel M, Lakhani GP, Ghosh S, Nayak S, Roy B, Baghel RPS, et al. Effect of BCS on milk production and reproduction in Murrah buffaloes. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(11):1204-1212.
22. Pramanik PS, Koul GL. Influence of BCS at calving on milk yield in Murrah buffaloes. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2002;55(2):100-103.
23. Rao KS, Anitha A. Body condition score system in Murrah buffaloes. Buffalo Bull. 2013;32:1290-1298.
24. Roche JR, Friggens NC, Kay JK, Fisher MW, Stafford KJ, Berry DP. Body condition score and its association with productivity and welfare. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92(12):5769-5801.
25. Roche JR, Berry DP, Kolver ES. Holstein-Friesian strain and feed effects on milk production and BCS. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89(9):3532-3543.
26. Selk GE, Wettemann RP, Lusby KS, Oltjen JW, Mobley SL, Rasby RJ, et al. Relationships among weight change, BCS and reproductive performance. J Anim Sci. 1988;66:3153-3159.
27. Sharma N. Development of computer models for production and reproduction performances of Murrah buffaloes [thesis]. Karnal (India): NDRI; 2012.
28. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8th ed. Calcutta: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.; 1994.
29. Wankhade PR, Manimaran A, Kumaresan A, Jeyakumar S, Sejian V, Rajendran D, et al. Immune system and feed intake associated with postpartum fertility. Livest Sci. 2019;228:18-24.
30. Wathes DC, Fenwick M, Cheng Z, Bourne N, Llewellyn S, Morris DG, et al. Influence of negative energy balance on fertility in dairy cows. Theriogenology. 2007;68(1):232-241.