Kütahya İlinde Yetiştirilen Anadolu Mandalarında Buzağılama Aralığı ve Kuruda Kalma Süresi Üzerine Araştırmalar

Öz

Sunulan çalışmada çiftlik şartlarında yetiştirilen Anadolu mandalarında Buzağılama aralığı (BA) ve üreme ve üretim özelliklerini etkileyen Kuruda kalma süresi (KKS)’ni belirleyerek bu özellikler üzerine etki eden çevresel etkileri araştırmak ve elde edilen sonuçların manda sürülerinde ıslaha yönelik damızlık seçim programlarında kullanma imkanlarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada 2014-2021 yılları arasında yetiştirilen 756 baş Anadolu mandasına ait 1427 adet Buzağılama aralığı ve Kuruda kalma süresine ait kayıtlar kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırmada, BA ve KKS genel ortalama ve standart hatası sırasıyla 411.374.10 gün ve 191.703.13 gün olarak belirlenmiştir. İlçe, buzağılama yılı, mevsimi ve laktasyon sırası bu özellikler üzerine etkileri belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada ilçe hariç incelenen tüm çevresel faktörlerin BA ve KKS üzerine etkisi önemli bulunmuştur (p<0.01, p<0.001). Çalışmada, seleksiyon programlarında verim ve üreme performansına etki eden faktörlerin dikkate alınması ve yetiştiriciler tarafından östrus ve kurutmanın izlenmesinin çiftlik verimliliğine katkı sağlayacağı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Manda
• buzağılama aralığı
• kuruda kalma süresi
• çevresel faktörler

Proje Numarası

TAGEM/43MANDA2012-01

Investigations on Calving Interval and Dry Period in Anatolian Buffaloes Reared in Kütahya Province

Öz

The study is intended to determine the calving interval (CI) and Dry period (DP), affecting both production and reproduction characteristics of Anatolian buffaloes reared under farm conditions, to investigate the environmental effects on these characteristics, and to use the results in stud selection programs for breeding in buffalo herds. In the study, 1427 calving interval and dry period records of 756 head of Anatolian buffalo reared between 2014-2021 were used. In this study, the overall mean and standard error of CI and DP were determined as 411.374.10 days and 191.703.13 days, respectively. The effects of county, calving year, season and parity on these features were determined. In the study, the effect of all environmental factors on CI and DP, apart from the county, was found to be significant (p<0.01, p<0.001). In the study, concluded that considering the factors affecting yield and reproductive performance in selection programs and monitoring of estrus and drying off by breeders will contribute to farm productivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Buffalo
• calving interval
• dry period
• environmental factors

Destekleyen Kurum

Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Tarımsal Araştırmalar ve Politikalar Genel Müdürlüğü

Proje Numarası

TAGEM/43MANDA2012-01

Teşekkür

The authors thank Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (project number: TAGEM/43MANDA2012-01), Kütahya Buffalo Breeders Association and Project Technical personnel for their contributions.

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad M, Shafiq M. Effect of season on fertility rate and milk production in Nili-Ravi buffaloes. 23rd Annual Report, Livestock Prod. Res. Inst., 2002, Bahadurnagar, Okara, Pakistan.
2. Alkoyak K, Öz S. The effect of some environmental factors on lactation length, milk yield and calving intervals of Anatolian Buffaloes in Bartın province of Turkey. Livestock Studies, 2020; 60(2), 54-61.
3. Anonymous. Turkish Statistical Institute Statistics. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/Start.do; Accession date: 08.03.2022.
4. Atasever S, Erdem H. Water buffalo raising and its future in Turkey, Anadolu J Agric Sci, 2008; 23(1), 59-64.
5. Ayad A, Abd-Allah M, Kamal M. Non-genetic factors affecting phenotypic parameters of milk production and reproductive performance in lactating Egyptian buffaloes. AASJ, 2022; 5(1), 10-24.
6. Bachman KC, Schairer ML. Invited review: bovine studies on optimal lengths of dry periods. J Dairy Sci, 2003; 86(10), 3027-3037.
7. Charlini BC, Sinniah J. Performance of Murrah, Surti,Nili-Ravi buffaloes and their crosses in the intermediate zone of Sri Lanka. LRRD, 2015; 27(3), 47.
8. Cicek H, Gunlu A, Tandogan M. Production function analysis of buffalo fattening enterprises in Afyonkarahisar region of Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv, 2009; 8(11), 2158-2163.

9. Fakruzzaman M, Sufian MKNB, Akter QS, Paul RC, et al. Effect of parity on productive and reproductive performance of buffaloes reared under farmers’ management at coastal districts in Bangladesh. IOSR-JAVS, 2020; 13(4), 21-23.
10. Hussain Z, Javed K, Hussain SMI, Kiyani GS. Some environmental effects on productive performance of Nili-Ravi buffaloes in Azad Kashmir. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2006; 16(3-4), 66- 69.
11. Kandasamy N, Lagaiathan VU, Krishnan AR. Nongenetic factors affecting calving interval and dry period of Murrah buffaloes. Buffalo Bull, 1993; 12(3), 63-65.
12. Kaplan Y. Yozgat İli Anadolu Mandalarında Bazı Büyüme, Üreme Ve Üretim Özelliklerini Etkileyen Genetik Ve Çevresel Faktörlerin Tahmini. Doktora Tezi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Afyonkarahisar, 2021.
13. Karaağaç M. Kırşehirde yetiştirilen siyah alaca sığırlarda genetik parametre tahminleri. Master's thesis, Kırşehir Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kırşehir, 2019.
14. Koçak S, Tekerli M, Çelikeloğlu K, Erdoğan M, et al. An investigation on yield and composition of milk, calving interval and repeatabilities in riverine buffaloes of Anatolia. J. Anim. Plant Sci, 2019; 29(3), 650-656.
15. Kumar M, Ratwan P, Patil CS, Vohra V. Influence of environmental factors on performance traits in Murrah buffaloes: A review. J. Vet. Science and Technology 2017; 6(1), 6–16.
16. Malhado CHM, Malhado ACM, Ramos ADA, Carneiro PLS, et al. Genetic parameters for milk yield, lactation length and calving intervals of Murrah buffaloes from Brazil. R. Bras. Zootec, 2013; 42(8), 565-569.
17. Marai IFM, Daader AH, Soliman AM, El-Menshawy SMS. Non-genetic factors affecting growth and reproduction traits of buffaloes under dry management housing (in sub-tropical environment) in Egypt. LRRD, 2009; 21 (3).
18. Minitab. Minitab statistical software version 18.1, 2017.
19. Nava-Trujillo H, Escalona-Muñoz J, Carrillo-Fernández F, Parra-Olivero A. Effect of parity on productive performance and calving interval in water buffaloes. J. Buffalo Sci, 2018; 7(1), 13-6.
20. Pasha TN, Hayat Z. Present situation and future perspective of buffaloes production in Asia. J plant Anim Science, 2012; 22, 250-256.
21. Poudel D, Bhattarai N, Kaphle K, Sapkota S, et al. Effect of parity on lactational efficiency of Murrah crossbred buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in central Nepal. Int. J. Agr. Forest, 2017; 7(6), 140-144.
22. Ramos AA, Malhado CHM, Carneiro PLS, Gonçalves HC, et al. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of the milk yield and calving interval in buffalo of the Murrah breed. Pesq Agropec Bras, 2006; 41(8), 1261-1267.
23. Sanker S, Kumar D, Mandal KG, Taggar RK, et al. Factors influencing the dry period and calving interval indifferent grades of buffaloes. Buffalo Bull, 2014; 33(1), 120-126.
24. Soysal Mİ, Genç S, Aksel M, Özkan Ünal E, et al. Effect of environmental factors on lactation milk yield, lactation length and calving ınterval of Anatolian buffalo in Istanbul. JASP, 2018; 1(1), 93-97.
25. Sule SR, Taparia AL, Tailor SS. Reproductive status of Surti buffaloes maintained under sub-humid conditions of Rajasthan. Indian Vet J, 2001; 78, 1049-1051.
26. Şekerden Ö. Büyükbaş Hayvan Yetiştirme (Manda Yetiştiriciliği). Temizyürek Ofset Matbaacılık, Hatay, Türkiye, 2001; pp. 1- 12.
27. Thevamanoharan K. Genetic analysis of performance traits of swamp and Riverine buffalo. Ph. D Thesis, Katholieke University Leuven, Belgium, 2002.
28. Tekerli M, Küçükkebabçı M, Akalın NH, Koçak S. Effects of environmental factors on some milk production traits, persistency and calving interval of Anatolian buffaloes. Livest Prod Sci, 2001; 68, 275–281.
29. Tekerli M. Manda Yıldızı data records, account and project tracking program, v5.04, 2019.
30. Yılmaz Adkinson A, Konca Y. Sütçü Manda Irklarının Performans, Süt Verimini ve Kalitesini Etkileyen Faktörler ve Türkiye’deki Geleceği. EJOSAT, 2021; 25, 498-508.
31. Zicarelli L. Can we consider buffalo a non-precocious and hypofertile species? Ital J Anim Sci, 2007; 6, 143–54.