4.3 Article

Short communication: reproductive response to concentrate supplementation of mixed-breed goats on rangeland

Journal

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Volume 52, Issue 5, Pages 2737-2741

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-020-02264-z

Keywords

Grazing goats; Pregnancy rate; Fetal losses; Litter size; Litter weight

Funding

  1. Sectorial Fund SAGARPA-CONACYT (Mexico) [2017-4-291691]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of concentrate supplementation to crossbred goats on rangeland during the dry period on their reproductive performance was investigated. Goats were assigned into two groups: a concentrate supplemented (S; n = 91) group and an unsupplemented (UNS; n = 118) group. S goats received 350 g/day of concentrate per head, 30 days prior to breeding (flushing in winter) and 30 days during the last trimester of pregnancy. UNS goats presented a lower (P < 0.01) liveweight at the onset of the breeding period than did the S group (38.2 +/- 3.7 vs. 44.4 +/- 3.6 kg). Average daily gains during pregnancy were higher (P < 0.01) in the S group than UNS goats (15.5 +/- 1.2 vs. - 0.5 +/- 5.1 g/d). S goats had a higher (P < 0.01) kidding rate (87.1%) than the UNS goats (54.7%). Litter size for UNS and S goats was 1.39 and 2.00, respectively (P < 0.01). Serum triiodothyronine, tetraiodothyronine, and cortisol concentration at the end of the flushing period were not affected by concentrate supplementation. Serum glucose (88.7 +/- 3.8 vs. 95.7 +/- 5.3 mg/dL), total protein (6.9 +/- 1.1 vs. 8.2 +/- 1.2 mg/dL), and blood urea nitrogen (17.1 vs. 21.0 +/- 4.3 mg/dL) concentrations were lower for UNS goats as compared with S goats. In conclusion, concentrate supplementation in crossbred goats on rangeland markedly improved body mass changes during gestation and the reproductive performance, which implies that malnutrition is a major barrier affecting fertility of goats and liveweight of kids in this rangeland.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available