FACTORS AFFECTING THE RESPONSE TO THE MALE EFFECT


The response to the male effect as for velocity, synchrony intensity and percentage of ovulating females, is dependent on environmental, social, physiologic and genetic factors.

These factors are broadly explained below:
Sexual status of the animals involved in male effect: The sexual status of the animal is extremely important to obtain a favourable result when working with biostimulation because it performs sexual behaviors more frequently (Veliz et al, 2002 ) which favour the quality of the stimulus an important factor for successful male effect (Veliz et al, 2006).

The sexual experience of the female:
The experience of the female which will be submitted to the male effect can be a regulatory fact in the response to the male effect (Gelez and Fabre-NYS 2006 Veliz et al; 2009). Chanvalllon et al 2010 found that muil-iperous goats had shorter latency between the introduction of male and the onset of physiologic changes when compared to nulliparous females, which showed physiological changes 45 minutes after the nulliparous.

However, the latency between the introduction of the male and luteinizing hormone surge was not affected by the female experience. In term, Walkden Brown et al (1993) reported that when exposed to buck fleece, nulliparous does show a better response to treatment than nulliparous female.

Ferandez et al (2011) and Sampaio et al (2012) verified no physiological changes (alterations in L.H surge), neither on the fertility of the nulliparous compared to nulliparous goats after the introduction of the male. Previously higher for small follicles, which evidences the role of the male in ovulation induction (Delgadills et al 2011).

According to Alvarez et al (2009) does subject to the male effect showed luteinizing hormone surge (LH) from 80 to 317 minutes, with 5.7 to 80 pulses within 39 hours and ovulation between 8 to 10 days after the introduction of the male. The first estrous induced by male’s presence may be accompanied by ovulation. The male effect is similar (1.8+0.2, 2.0 + 0.9) (Delgadillo et al; 2011) for the first time and second estrous respectively.

Thus, a female naturally or artificially inseminated at the first estrous can be fertile. Therefore, in all ruminant with the introduction of male, there is a progressive hormonal adjustment, promoting stabilization of physiologic and adequate ovarian functionality. Thus, it is commonly observed that short estrous at the beginning of bio stimulation of the male (Gonalez-Bulnes et al, 2006).

These physiological regulations mean that the females are likely to conceive on the next-estrous when compared to the physiological state existing at the first estrous since the ovarian functions are re-established to normality (Mellado et al; 1994).

Fores et al (2000) achieved a pregnancy rate of 95% at the second estrous and only 10% at the first estrous.

Stage of Postpartum: 
This method alone has been shown to effectively synchronize estrus (all does breed in 10 days)  with buck introduction 28 days post-kidding. 

Unless male induced estrus activity is initially preceding the natural breeding season, the response is temporary in nature and the doe will return to initiating breeding season early or in combination with some drug-induced out –of-season breeding manipulation.

Sexual Experience:
According to Bench et al. (2002), prior contact of males with females can provide experience to the male regarding copulation or can help in disinhibiting of inexperienced males.

Veliz et al (2002), studied the combination of sexually active males with the introduction of estrous females at the start of treatment and observed an efficient response to the male effect (94.7% estrous females in estrous) and concentrated induction because 79% cows and does demonstrate estrous in the first three days.

Environmental Factors:  
These deals with such factors as nutrition, the health status of the animal season of the year and density and group size.

1.   Nutrition and health of animals involved in bio stimulation by the male effect one of the fundamental importance of direct influence on the results (Scaramuzzi and Martin, 2008)
2.    Density and group size: maintenance of high animal densities per unit of space is a common practice in intensive animal production systems. High population density of animals in a pen, affects the behavior and performance to the male effect. Some of these animal behaviors affected include feeding, drinking and walking. This also makes it difficult for most of the females to be mated when induced into estrus by the males present.
3.    Season of the year: After estrous induction by the male effect lambing, calving or kidding is usually delayed during summer period until estradiol benzoate treatment is given to the animal to induce parturition.

Genetic Factor
The factor discussed is related to the body weight of the animal Body weight: 

This is directly related to the reproductive response of the female when subjected to the male effect (Rivas Munoz et al; 2010), even when using sexually active males. 

These limiting factors continue to have a negative effect on the response to the male effect,  resulting in abnormalities related to the estrous cycle, ovulation rate in addition to increasing the number of does showing an anovulatory estrous. Mallado et al (1994) observed that in extensive conditions, Does with good condition scored ( BSc: 7 on 9 1-9 range) when compared to the low score (Bsc:2 1-9 range)  tends to respond to the male effect earlier. 

Thus, animals selected for the implementation of the male effect must have optimal body weight related to parameters such as breed, physiology age etc. other factors include:

Physiological Factors

These include temperament of females and the influence of emotional reactivity on the reproductive success of sheep to be investigated over the past two decades by Blache and Bickell (2010) who suggested that the temperament is one the requirements for selection of animals.

Lima (2006) noted that females with calm temperament responded better to biostimulation by the ram than nervous ewes. Solva et al (2012) considered that the observation of this parameter influences the responses of reproductive behavior.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post