Next Article in Journal
First Molecular Detection and Genetic Characterization of Tetratrichomonas buttreyi and Pentatrichomonas hominis in Donkeys in Shanxi Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Amorphous Halomonas-PHB on Growth, Body Composition, Immune-Related Gene Expression and Vibrio anguillarum Resistance of Hybrid Grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus ♀ × E. lanceolatu ♂) Juveniles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Brilliant Cresyl Blue Negative Oocytes Show a Reduced Competence for Embryo Development after In Vitro Fertilisation with Sperm Exposed to Oxidative Stress
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword

by
Fernando López-Gatius
1,2
1
Agrotecnio Centre, 25198 Lleida, Spain
2
Subunit, Transfer in Bovine Reproduction SLu, 22300 Barbastro, Spain
Submission received: 3 September 2024 / Accepted: 11 September 2024 / Published: 12 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction)
Dairy cattle have played an important role in economic development since the beginning of agriculture. In essence, dairy cattle herding had already become a dominant part of the culture and economic development during the Neolithic era [1]. Subsequently, man–cow interactions have been multifaceted, from a genetic mutation that gave people the ability to produce lactase and drink milk throughout their lives [2] to the production of a vaccine against Variola (Smallpox virus) [3]. It is equally important that reproductive technologies developed for dairy cattle provide a spin-off in mammalian species [4]. Animal breeding and assisted reproduction in women were revolutionized worldwide during the 20th century by discoveries on spermatozoa preservation, oocyte maturation, embryo transfer, and embryo freezing in cattle. For example, Dr. G. Pincus and Dr. M.C. Chang were students at the Cambridge Animal Research Station before developing the contraceptive pill and pioneering fertilization studies [5]. Currently, we share concerns over global warning and the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. In this context, aspects of the reproduction control of cattle seem to have plateaued. However, changes in both genetic screening to increase fertility and management practices to promote cow comfort have recently improved reproductive efficiency [6,7]. In addition, by reducing the incidence of reproductive disorders such as anestrus, low fertility, pregnancy failure, or perinatal mortality that are essential to the health and welfare of cows, the use of land resources will be more efficient [7,8,9]. In fact, cow health and welfare have been extensively associated with higher milk production alongside high fertility in the past two decades [6,7,10,11]. Therefore, it is a good time to emphasize the importance of effective reproductive management, which not only benefits the economics of herds but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions [7,12,13]. This lowers public concern about dairy production [7,8,14,15]. The thirteen articles (seven original articles, four reviews, and two commentaries) included in the Special Issue entitled “Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction” have thus sought to better understand and monitor the reproductive physiology of the dairy cow. These have been published in recent issues of Animals and are compiled on the journal’s webpage: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/special_issues/frontiers_in_dairy_cattle_reproduction.
The term advance might suggest that there is a difficult borderline in dairy cattle reproduction. However, knowledge transfer on the reproductive management of dairy cows is enormous. In effect, every detail within a herd’s routine can be improved so that focus on cutting-edge technology is addressed by all authors in the Special Issue. The establishment of pregnancy to term remains the primary goal in most dairy systems [7,15,16]. This means that clinical and practical approaches from different fields may be a source of applications to improve reproductive efficiency in herds. Thus, several authors describe strategies to improve reproductive parameters. Important economic losses are linked to the repeat breeder cow syndrome worldwide. Carlos Carmelo Pérez-Marín and Luis Angel Quintela [17] compile information about recent knowledge on the pathogenesis of this syndrome and discuss potential therapies and management strategies to reduce its incidence in herds. Ottó Szenci [18] documents how the negative effect of dystocia on calves and their dams can be reduced using different precision farming devices to predict the onset of parturition. Silviu-Ionut Bors and Alina Bors [19] show that the profitability of dairy farms can be improved by rebreeding the nonpregnant cows after early negative pregnancy diagnosis (25 days after artificial insemination (AI)). Zoltán Szelényi et al. [20] propose to reduce the incidence of retained placenta and of a large uterus at AI to improve the rate of pregnancy maintenance. Scoring the size and position of the pre-breeding uterus may provide a useful source of information to manage fertility in dairy cows [21,22,23]. There is much to be learned about factors and their interactions influencing pregnancy loss of non-infectious causes after a positive pregnancy diagnosis (during the late embryonic/early fetal period) [16,24,25]. Even the clinician himself can be a risk factor for pregnancy loss [25]. Fernando López-Gatius [26] outlines that therapeutic abortion using an increased prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) dose offers benefits in cows carrying dead twins during the early fetal period (49–55 days post-AI). Indeed, the increase in the standard dose of the PGF2α or their analogs to induce luteolysis is beneficial under certain circumstances in high-producing dairy cows [27]. The use of sex-sorted semen has increased sharply over the last decade, but it is significantly less fertile than conventional semen [28,29,30]. This is the reason why the timing of AI was revisited, proposing the end of estrus rather than its onset as the best guide for AI timing in dairy cattle undergoing spontaneous estrus [31]. Using the dairy cow as a model, Olimpia Barbato and colleagues [32] update the use of pregnancy-associated glycoprotein (PAG) measurements to improve reproductive management in bovine as well as in small ruminants and buffalo. The authors conclude that PAG measurements using on-farm pregnancy tests are a feasible method of pregnancy confirmation at herd level [32].
Reproduction is a physiological function very sensitive to disruption by multiple stressors, particularly when mammals are under heat stress conditions [33,34]. Perturbations in follicular physiology during a period of thermal stress are delineated by Fabio De Rensis and partners [35]. Oocytes, which are also very sensitive to any type of stress [36], carry the intercellular communication in the mammalian ovary, including follicular development and formation of the follicular fluid [37,38]. This is of relevance to selecting valuable oocytes/follicles for assisted reproductive technologies. Since 2017, due to the increasing availability and lower costs of production, the global use of in vitro-produced (IVP) embryos has surpassed the number of in vivo-derived embryos [39]. However, the technical aspects of IVP embryos remain to be optimized [40,41,42]. Olga Witkowska-Piłaszewicz and colleagues [43] expand knowledge associated with follicle health evaluation as potential applications for assisted reproduction procedures. Using Brilliant Cresyl Blue staining, Heinrich Bollwein and colleagues [44] provide a further oocyte quality description to select the best oocytes when damaged sperm have to be used in in vitro fertilization processes. Finally, three papers on reproductive genomics provide some basis for both research and resource optimization in the dairy sector. In this time of advances in reproductive genomics [45], mechanisms involved in corpus luteum formation, function, and regression must be better understood, particularly in high milk producers. Indeed, the concept of luteal deficiency, which was already defined in 1949 [46], has been widely developed in humans [47,48]. However, clinical manifestations of sub-luteal function in cattle, which as in the human species result in low fertility [17] and early pregnancy loss [16], have not received widespread consideration. Findings by Michael W. Pfaffl and colleagues [49] reveal a clear involvement of adipokines in the local mechanisms of luteal function. Darren K. Griffin’s group [50], working with the bull (dairy and beef), presents the incidence and potential costs (financial and environmental) of genetic abnormalities. Fernando A. Di Croce’s group [51], working with Holstein dairy cows, proves that the inclusion of cow abortion genomic predictions in a multi-trait selection index would allow dairy producers to reduce the incidence of abortion and to select high-producing, healthier, and more profitable cows.
For that matter, we believe there is much to be learned by exploring all the articles in the Special Issue. We hope that these new insights will lead to a better understanding of the reproductive function of the cow at the farm level and to the development of new strategies to improve it. Focus on physiological functions important for reproduction will improve the health and welfare of the dairy cow, favoring both increased productivity and a reduction in the carbon footprint of dairy production systems.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zeuner, F.E. The history of the domestication of cattle. In Man and Cattle; Mourant, A.E., Zeuner, E.F., Eds.; Royal Antropo-logical Institute: London, UK, 1963; pp. 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  2. Curry, A. Archaeology: The milk revolution. Nature 2013, 500, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Smith, K.A. Edward Jenner and the small pox vaccine. Front. Immunol. 2011, 2, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hunter, R.H.F.; López-Gatius, F. From sperm to embryos; lessons learnt from Tim Rowson’s career. Theriogenology 2021, 172, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moor, R.M.; Booth, W.D.; Allen, W.R. A History of the Cambridge Animal Research Station, 1933–1986; R. & W. Communications: Newmarket, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bello, N.M.; Stevenson, J.S.; Tempelman, R.J. Invited review: Milk production and reproductive performance: Modern interdisciplinary insights into an enduring axiom. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 5461–5475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. De Vries, A. Symposium review: Why revisit dairy cattle productive lifespan? J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 3838–3845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Knapp, J.R.; Laur, G.L.; Vadas, P.A.; Weiss, W.P.; Tricarico, J.M. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3231–3261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ozlu, E.; Arriaga, F.J.; Bilen, S.; Gozukara, G.; Babur, E. Carbon footprint management by agricultural practices. Biology 2022, 11, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bedere, N.; Cutullic, E.; Delaby, L.; Garcia-Launay, F.; Disenhaus, C. Meta-analysis of the relationships between reproduction, milk yield and body condition score in dairy cows. Liv. Sci. 2018, 210, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. LeBlanc, S. Assessing the association of the level of milk production with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. J. Reprod. Dev. 2020, 56, S1–S7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Capper, J.L.; Bauman, D.E. The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems. Ann. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 1, 469–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baruselli, P.S.; de Abreu, L.Â.; de Paula, V.R.; Carvalho, B.; Gricio, E.A.; Mori, F.K.; Rebeis, L.M.; Albertini, S.; de Souza, A.H.; D’Occhio, M. Applying assisted reproductive technology and reproductive management to reduce CO2-equivalent emission in dairy and beef cattle: A review. Anim. Reprod. 2023, 20, e20230060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wolf, C.A.; Tonsor, G.T.; McKendree, M.G.S.; Thomson, D.U.; Swanson, J.C. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 5892–5903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lucy, M.C. Symposium review: Selection for fertility in the modern dairy cow-Current status and future direction for genetic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3706–3721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ealy, A.D.; Seekford, Z.K. Symposium review: Predicting pregnancy loss in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 11798–11804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pérez-Marín, C.C.; Quintela, L.A. Current Insights in the repeat breeder cow syndrome. Animals 2023, 13, 2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Szenci, O. Accuracy to predict the onset of calving in dairy farms by using different precision livestock farming devices. Animals 2022, 12, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bors, S.-I.; Bors, A. Economics of rebreeding nonpregnant dairy cows diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography on day 25 after artificial insemination. Animals 2022, 12, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Szelényi, Z.; Kovács, L.; Szenci, O.; Lopez-Gatius, F. The uterus as an influencing factor for late embryo/early fetal loss—A clinical update. Animals 2022, 12, 1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Young, C.D.; Schrick, F.N.; Pohler, K.G.; Saxton, A.M.; Di Croce, F.A.; Roper, D.A.; Wilkerson, J.B.; Edwards, J.L. Short communication: A reproductive tract scoring system to manage fertility in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 5922–5927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Madureira, A.; Poole, R.K.; Burnett, T.A.; Guida, T.G.; Edwards, J.L.; Schrick, F.N.; Vasconcelos, J.; Cerri, R.; Pohler, K.G. Size and position of the reproductive tract impacts fertility outcomes and pregnancy losses in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 2020, 158, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Palacín-Chauri, R.J.; Garcia-Ispierto, I. Cow and management factors and their association with estimates of uterine size and position at the time of insemination of dairy cattle. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2023, 58, 1338–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Szelényi, Z.; Szenci, O.; Bodó, S.; Kovács, L. Noninfectious causes of pregnancy loss at the late embryonic/early fetal stage in dairy cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 3390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. López-Gatius, F.; Szenci, O. Clinical management of pregnancy-related problems between days 28 and 60 in the dairy cow. Theriogenology 2023, 206, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. López-Gatius, F. Response to therapeutic abortion in lactating dairy cows carrying dead twins during the late embryo/early fetal period. Animals 2021, 11, 2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. López-Gatius, F. Ovarian response to prostaglandin F in lactating dairy cows: A clinical update. J. Reprod. Dev. 2022, 68, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Vishwanath, R.; Moreno, J.F. Review: Semen sexing—Current state of the art with emphasis on bovine species. Animal 2018, 12, s85–s96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reese, S.; Pirez, M.C.; Steele, H.; Kölle, S. The reproductive success of bovine sperm after sex-sorting: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Seidel, G.E., Jr.; DeJarnette, J.M. Applications and world-wide use of sexed semen in cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2021, 246, 106841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. López-Gatius, F. Revisiting the timing of insemination at spontaneous estrus in dairy cattle. Animals 2022, 12, 3565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barbato, O.; Menchetti, L.; Brecchia, G.; Barile, V.L. Using pregnancy-associated glycoproteins (PAGs) to improve reproductive management: From dairy cows to other dairy livestock. Animals 2022, 12, 2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boni, R. Heat stress, a serious threat to reproductive function in animals and humans. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2019, 86, 1307–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sampath, V.; Shalakhti, O.; Veidis, E.; Efobi, J.A.I.; Shamji, M.H.; Agache, I.; Skevaki, C.; Renz, H.; Nadeau, K.C. Acute and chronic impacts of heat stress on planetary health. Allergy 2023, 78, 2109–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. De Rensis, F.; Saleri, R.; Garcia-Ispierto, I.; Scaramuzzi, R.; López-Gatius, F. Effects of heat stress on follicular physiology in dairy cows. Animals 2021, 11, 3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Roth, Z. Symposium review: Reduction in oocyte developmental competence by stress is associated with alterations in mitochondrial function. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3642–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eppig, J.J. Oocyte control of ovarian follicular development and function in mammals. Reproduction 2001, 122, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eppig, J.J.; Wigglesworth, K.; Pendola, F.L. The mammalian oocyte orchestrates the rate of ovarian follicular development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 2890–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. International Embryo Transfer Society. 2017 statistics of embryo production and transfer in domestic farm animals. Embryo Technol. Newsl. 2018, 34, 8–25. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hansen, P.J. The incompletely fulfilled promise of embryo transfer in cattle—Why aren’t pregnancy rates greater and what can we do about it? J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baruselli, P.S.; Ferreira, R.M.; Vieira, L.M.; Souza, A.H.; Bó, G.A.; Rodrigues, C.A. Use of embryo transfer to alleviate infertility caused by heat stress. Theriogenology. 2020, 155, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Seneda, M.M.; Costa, C.B.; Zangirolamo, A.F.; Dos Anjos, M.M.; de Paula, G.R.; Morotti, F. From the laboratory to the field: How to mitigate pregnancy losses in embryo transfer programs? Anim. Reprod. 2024, 21, e20240032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pawlinski, B.; Petrajtis-Gołobów, M.; Trela, M.; Witkowska-Piłaszewicz, O. Acid–base, gas, ions, and glucose analysis in follicular fluid in Holstein-Friesian dairy cows is associated with the follicle size in Poland. Animals 2023, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bittner-Schwerda, L.; Herrera, C.; Wyck, S.; Malama, E.; Wrenzycki, C.; Bollwein, H. Brilliant Cresyl Blue negative oocytes show a reduced competence for embryo development after in vitro fertilisation with sperm exposed to oxidative stress. Animals 2023, 13, 2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Humblot, P. From clinics to (cow)mics: A reproductive journey. Anim. Reprod. 2018, 15, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jones, G.S. The luteal phase defect. Fertil. Steril. 1976, 27, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Diagnosis and treatment of luteal phase deficiency: A committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2021, 115, 1416–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mizrachi, Y.; Horowitz, E.; Ganer Herman, H.; Farhi, J.; Raziel, A.; Weissman, A. Should women receive luteal support following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update 2021, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Thaqi, G.; Berisha, B.; Pfaffl, M.W. Expression of locally produced adipokines and their receptors during different physiological and reproductive stages in the bovine corpus luteum. Animals 2023, 13, 1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lewis, N.M.; Canedo-Ribeiro, C.; Rathje, C.C.; Jennings, R.L.; Danihel, M.; Bosman, L.M.; Silvestri, G.; Griffin, D.K. The economic burden of chromosome translocations and the benefits of enhanced screening for cattle breeding. Animals 2022, 12, 1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wijma, R.; Weigel, D.J.; Vukasinovic, N.; Gonzalez-Peña, D.; McGovern, S.P.; Fessenden, B.C.; McNeel, A.K.; Di Croce, F.A. Ge-nomic prediction for abortion in lactating Holstein dairy cows. Animals 2022, 12, 2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López-Gatius, F. Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword. Animals 2024, 14, 2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

AMA Style

López-Gatius F. Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword. Animals. 2024; 14(18):2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

Chicago/Turabian Style

López-Gatius, Fernando. 2024. "Advances in Dairy Cattle Reproduction—A Foreword" Animals 14, no. 18: 2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182650

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop