Next Article in Journal
LCA-Net: A Lightweight Cross-Stage Aggregated Neural Network for Fine-Grained Recognition of Crop Pests and Diseases
Previous Article in Journal
The Agritourism Value Chain: An Application to the Dehesa Areas of Extremadura
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture13112079
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Connectedness between Intensive and Extensive Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Generate Out-of-Season Bio-Economic Indices in Goats

by
Cesar A. Meza-Herrera
1,
Maria G. Machado-Ramos
2,
Angeles De Santiago-Miramontes
2,*,
Miguel Mellado
3,
Cayetano Navarrete-Molina
4,
Maria de los Ángeles Sariñana-Navarrete
4,
José R. Arévalo
5,
Oscar Angel-García
2,
Alan S. Alvarado-Espino
2 and
Rafael Rodriguez-Venegas
2
1
Unidad Regional Universitaria de Zonas Áridas, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Bermejillo 35230, Durango, Mexico
2
Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias en Producción Agropecuaria, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Unidad Laguna, Torreón 27054, Coahuila, Mexico
3
Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias en Producción Agropecuaria, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico
4
Department of Chemical and Environmental Technology, Technological University of Rodeo, Rodeo 35760, Durango, Mexico
5
Department of Botany, Ecology and Plant Physiology, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(11), 2079; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112079
Submission received: 18 September 2023 / Revised: 25 October 2023 / Accepted: 28 October 2023 / Published: 31 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Farm Animal Production)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Founded on a circular economy perspective, the possible effect of targeted supplementation with leftover feed from dairy cows (i.e., intensive system) upon the productive economic performance of crossbred–rangeland goats (i.e., extensive system) in northern arid Mexico was assessed. Multiparous goats (n = 38) with similar body condition score (BCS) and body weight (BW) were randomly assigned during the deep anestrus season (i.e., March–April, 25° N) into two groups: (1) the control-non-supplemented group (CONT; n = 19; BCS: 1.76 ± 0.06; BW: 44.3 ± 2.5 kg) and (2) the supplemented group (SUPL; n = 19; BCS: 1.76 ± 0.07; BW: 43.7 ± 1.8 kg). While the SUPL group received 400 g goat d−1 of dairy cow feed leftovers prior to grazing, both groups went daily to the rangeland (i.e., ≈8 h). The study considered an experimental period of 36 d with an experimental breeding of 11 d (d0–d10). Previously, on days −20, −10, −1 preceding the male-to-female interaction, the anovulatory status of goats was confirmed through ultrasonographic scanning. Prior to mating, the males were separated from goats and treated for a period of 3 weeks (i.e., every 3rd d) with testosterone (i.e., 50 mg i.m.). The response variables evaluated considered goats induced to estrus (GIE, %), goats ovulating (GO, %), ovulation rate (OR, units), pregnancy rate-1 (PRd36, %), pregnancy rate-2 (PRd50, %), embryo mortality-d50 (EMO, %), potential kidding index-d50 (PKId50,%), kid weight at birth simples (KWBS, kg), potential litter efficiency at birth (PLEB, kg), and potential litter efficiency at weaning (i.e., d21 post kidding), either expressed as kg head−1 (PLEW1) or USD head−1 (PLEW2). Although no differences (p > 0.05) occurred for GIE and PRd50, increases in the phenotypic expression of OR (1.42 vs. 0.73), PRd36 (68.4 vs. 36.8), EMO (23.0 vs. 0), PKId50 (74.7 vs. 26.8), and KWBS (4.1 vs. 3.3) occurred (p < 0.05) in the SUPL goats. To have a more integrative evaluation regarding the out-of-season reproductive outcomes, three bio-economic efficiency indices per goat exposed to males were generated: PLEB (4.3 vs. 0.6 kg), PLEW1-kg (7.7 vs. 3.1 kg), and PLEW2-USD (63.9 vs. 26.1 USD), which also favored (p < 0.05) to the SUPL goats. The last result occurred despite no differences (p > 0.05) regarding BW, BCS, and serum glucose concentrations between experimental groups. Furthermore, applying the main research outcomes from this specific study toward the large-scale goat production system in the Comarca Lagunera—one of the largest dairy goat production hubs in The Americas—denoted promising expectations, either from an economic or productive–reproductive standpoint. Certainly, goat producers from the region would increase their potential annual income just from the sale of kids by close to 250%; that is from MUSD 1.1 to 3.9. This result should reduce food insecurity and economic stress, as well as enhance the livelihoods of the goat keepers and their families.

1. Introduction

There are two interesting terms indistinctly used to refer to a group of domesticated animals: herd and flock. However, while herd tends to be used to define a group of bovines (i.e., a more intensified production system), the term flock is most frequently applied to define a group of sheep or goats (i.e., a more extensive production system) [1,2]. The last is not the main and only difference between these production systems; another important difference is the way in which reproductive efficiency can be defined. Certainly, when talking about a flock (i.e., either sheep or goats) the number of lambs or kids born or weaned per female exposed to the male provides a more integrative view regarding the total productive efficiency of the flock and the viability of an extensive production system [3,4]. Moreover, considering the seasonal nature of goat reproduction allows us to measure factors required for reproductive success, which required the female to show estrus sexual behavior, accomplish an optimal ovarian performance (especially follicular development), achieve an increased ovulation rate and, on top of that, attract the attention of the male to be mated [5,6]. Failure to show successful behavior in said reproductive windows would compromise the reproductive, productive, and economic viability of any extensive production system, either cow [1], sheep, or goats [2].
To obtain rewarding reproductive outcomes either at birth or at weaning, it is crucial to minimize losses along the reproductive pathway, that is from the pre-breeding stages up to the weaning stage [7,8]. Among the reproductive–productive components to define a successful reproductive pathway, we must consider the ovulation rate at breeding, conception failures, the number of embryos implanted, the number of fetuses at mid- and late pregnancy [9,10,11,12], as well as both litter size at birth and at weaning. Moreover, all of these must be aligned with suitable growth at the embryonic, fetal, and lamb phases [2,13]. Nonetheless, a definitory response variable along with the reproductive pathway is the ovulation rate (OR) [13,14,15]. Certainly, OR rules the superior threshold of litter size at birth, which in turn reflects not only gestational litter size but also offers clues to maternal health status as well as intrauterine progression. Embryo mortality (EMO) is a nonlinear function of time from ovulation (i.e., OR), with greater losses in early pregnancy (i.e., 1/3 of gestation) [16,17,18]. Moreover, litter size at birth and at weaning per female exposed to the male provides an integrative view regarding female reproductive–productive efficiency [19]. Hence, both OR and EMO can be considered important predictors of the proportion of goats pregnant at d45 [17] at kidding [13] as well as at weaning [20,21] regarding those females exposed to males at breeding.
In addition, the goat’s energy reserves or metabolic status throughout targeted supplementation either with conventional supplements or alternative feed additives are central to positively modifying not only productive outputs (i.e., milk yield or immune status) [22] but also the extent of the reproductive season, the estrus cycle characteristics, as well as the magnitude of OR [23,24,25]. Moreover, a higher conception rate and a reduced EMO have been reported in goats submitted to a short-term nutritional supplementation (i.e., the acute effect of nutrition) [26]. In this respect, and considering the research outcomes from a previous study based on a circular economy approach, we stated the feasibility of promoting connectedness of two highly discordant ruminant production systems (i.e., bovine intensive and caprine extensive) [27]. While the bovine intensive system is mainly based on an extract–produce–dispose strategy [1,27], the caprine extensive production system is largely based on a rethink–reuse–reduce approach [27]. Building upon such inklings, we hypothesized that using feed wastes of a large-scale, industrialized, more linear dairy cow production scheme (i.e., intensive system) to supplement anestrus–rangeland-managed goats throughout a kind of “Robin Hood Effect” will enhance the reproductive outcomes of a less linear, more circular, goat production scheme (i.e., extensive system). Another interesting characteristic that sets apart goats from their counterparts ovine and bovine as an efficient species for meat production at the global level is not based on high growth rates but on their large OR, increased fertility, and augmented prolificacy [28]. Therefore, the response variables evaluated in this study included the potential kidding rate based on the observed OR weighted EMO on days 36 and 50 after the male-to-female interaction. Moreover, to obtain more integrative knowledge regarding the out-of-season bio-economic efficiency per goat exposed to males, the productivity indexes potential litter efficiency at birth (PLEB, kg goat−1) and potential litter efficiency at weaning (PLEW-1) (i.e., d21 post kidding), from biological (i.e., kg goat−1) and economical (PLEW-2) (USD goat−1) standpoints, were also tested. This study was designed to disentangle these scientific inquiries.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Climatic and Environmental Conditions of the Study and Institutional Approval

The goats used in this trial received management corresponding to the predominant extensive goat production system in northern Mexico: goats were grazed during the day (0900 to 1900 h) with night confinement. Said confinement was carried out in properly designed pens to avoid possible physical damage to the experimental units. The grazing area is in the middle part of the Chihuahuan Desert, north of Mexico (25°51′ N, 103°16′ W; 1148 m.a.s.l.), and includes areas of natural vegetation, where shrubs and grasses predominate [29]; the goats were occasionally grazed in crop areas, mainly forage (i.e., corn and sorghum). Additionally, during the night confinement, the goats had ad libitum access to blocks composed of salt and trace minerals, as well as clean water. According to the Köppen classification, the climate of the study area is BWhw”(e’), which corresponds to a very dry climate that is cool in winter with rains in summer. Environmental temperatures show extreme variations throughout the year, ranging between −2 °C and 44 °C, with an average annual temperature of 21.3 °C. Additionally, the greatest rainfall occurs in summer and autumn, accumulating an annual average rainfall of 220 mm [30]. The photoperiodic variations account for 3:22 h between the summer and winter solstices, with 13:41 and 10:19 h of light, respectively [31]. Moreover, the study was carried out under the standards required for this type of research, such as the precautions and considerations adopted to achieve adequate well-being, care, and ethical use in the procedures, management, and methods of the experimental units involved in our study, both at national [32] and international [33] levels. This study received institutional approval, referenced with the number UAAAN-UL-050/22CA-MV-LN.

2.2. Animal Management, Anestrus Status Confirmation, the Male Effect, and Treatments

To induce estrus, both experimental groups of seasonally anestrus goats were exposed to mixed-breed males with dairy characteristics (n = 4) with proven libido and fertility. Body condition score (BCS) and body weight (BW) were similar in all males, with average values of 2.5 units and 64.4 kg, respectively. The evaluation of BCS was carried out via palpation of the lumbar region of the goats, based on a scale of 1 to 5 units, where 1 = very thin and 5 = very fat [34]). Three weeks prior to the male–female interaction (i.e., 6–27 March), the males received intramuscular testosterone injections of 50 mg (Testosterone 50, Brovel®, Mexico City, Mexico) every third day; the males were separated from the females during this process as previously suggested [35]. Subsequently, males treated with testosterone were exposed to anestrus goats, to promote ovarian activity through the male effect. The goats used (n = 38) were dairy breed crosses and were managed under an extensive production system. To verify the state of anestrus, all goats were subjected to transrectal ultrasound (Aloka SSD 500, Tokyo, Japan), using a 7.5 MHz transducer, to confirm the absence of corpus luteum in both ovaries. These ultrasounds were performed on days −20, −10, and −1, considering day 0 (d0) as the onset of the experimental mating (i.e., 28 March). Once seasonal anestrus was confirmed, the goats were divided into two groups: (1) the supplemented group (SUPL; n = 19; BCS: 1.76 ± 0.07; BW: 43.7 ± 1.8 kg), which received 400 g of the remains of a fully mixed and balanced ration for dairy cows managed in an intensive production system, and (2) the non-supplemented group (CONT; n = 19; BCS: 1.76 ± 0.06; BW: 44.3 ± 2.5 kg), which did not receive additional supplementation and all their nutritional requirements came from grazing in the natural vegetation of the study area. Supplementation was offered to the SUPL group prior to grazing (0700 h), from day −5 to day +15 (i.e., 23 March to 23 April). Both experimental groups were grazed daily (i.e., 0900–1900 h) throughout the study period. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the experimental protocol of the main activities developed over time.
As shown in Figure 1, one day before exposure to the males, that is, 24 h before d0, a total of 25 mg of progesterone was administered intramuscularly to each goat (Zoetis®® Laboratory, Mexico City, Mexico) to prevent the presence of short estrus cycles [36]. As programmed, on 28 March, at 1900 h, two testosterone-treated males were introduced into each female experimental group; every 12 h, the males were alternated. To record the weight of females, a digital pendulum scale with a capacity of 150 kg (model WH-C100, Weiheng, China) was used; the weights were recorded prior to feeding on days −5, −1, and +15. On these same days, blood samples were obtained from all experimental units via jugular venipuncture to quantify the level of glucose in the blood; an amount of 1 μL of blood was applied to the test strip, which was absorbed by capillarity and quantified by using a portable digital glucometer (model 0086, ABCSu-Chek® Roche, Germany), considering a reliability level of 95%.
The composition and characteristics of the nutritional supplement offered were previously reported [27]. Regarding the management of the supplement offered, it was daily collected at 0600 h from an intensive dairy cow production system (i.e., Holstein Friesian). This production unit was located 2 km away from where the goat experimental groups were located. The leftover food was collected directly from the feeder aisle without more than one hour passing between the collection of the leftovers and its supplementation to the SUPL group. The above procedure, with the purpose of minimizing contamination and avoiding the presence of aflatoxins, considers that one of the main variables related to the number of aflatoxins present in the diets of ruminant animals is the storage time of the offered diet [37]. Moreover, the provided supplement (i.e., leftovers) was carefully monitored to ensure that aflatoxin levels were well below the established safety limits for animal feed. This precautionary measure was taken to safeguard the animals’ health and welfare. Certainly, aflatoxin contamination in animal feed can pose serious health risks, including impaired growth and liver damage [38]. By maintaining feed quality within safe limits, we aimed to minimize any potential influence of aflatoxins in the experimental units. Thereafter, at 0700 h, during the goat milking process, a total of 400 g of supplement was individually offered to each goat in a small container. An optimal palatability level of the supplement was assumed based on the total consumption of the supplement offered to each goat during the milking process along with the experimental period.

2.3. Parameters Examined: Stimulation of the Estrus Cycle and Ovarian Activity

Based on individual recordings, the response to the male effect for estrus induction was quantified. Briefly, the goats were exposed to the sexually active males from 1900 up to 0900 h the next day, that is, through nocturnal mating, for a period of 10 d. The methodology proposed by Chemineau et al. was considered to define whether or not the goat was receptive (i.e., in estrus), which mentions that if a goat is in estrus, it must necessarily remain motionless and accept being mounted [39]. The hours elapsed from the exposure of the females to the male (i.e., d0) until they agreed to be mated by the male was defined as latency to estrus. The duration of estrus was considered as the time interval between the first and last time that goats accepted the male’s mating. Confirmation of ovulation considered the presence of corpora lutea in either of the two ovaries. For this purpose, a transrectal ultrasound examination was performed on each experimental unit, using an Aloka SSD-500 device from Tokyo, Japan, with a probe of 7.5 MHz. The quantification was carried out on day 10 of the experimental period (i.e., 8 April) considering that on this day none of the goats showed any sign of estrus. In addition to confirming ovulation, the size of corpora lutea present in both ovaries was quantified using the formula: V = 4/3 × π × r3, which was used to calculate the volume of the corpus luteum [40]. In the formula, (r) is the radius and I considers the length (L) and width (A) of the corpus luteum; these values were entered into the formula previously proposed (r = (L/2 + A/2)/2) [40]. The pregnancy rate in both experimental groups was diagnosed on days 36 and 50 from the beginning of the interaction between the male and female via ultrasound, using the previously mentioned equipment.

2.4. Female Reproductive Efficiency, Components, and Potential Bio-Economic Efficiency Indices

To define the out-of-season goat reproductive efficiency, six reproductive components and five potential bio-economic efficiency indices were calculated. The reproductive components evaluated were (1) goats induced to estrus (GIE, %): goats induced to estrus per goat exposed to males; (2) goats ovulating (GO, %): goats ovulating per goats exposed to males; (3) ovulation rate (OR, units): corpus luteum number per goat ovulating; (4) pregnancy rate-1 (PRd36, %): goats diagnosed as pregnant 36 d apart from the male-to-female interaction (MFI); (5) pregnancy rate-2 (PRd50, %): goats diagnosed as pregnant 50 d apart MFI; and (6) embryonic mortality (EMO, %): goats diagnosed as non-pregnant 50 d apart MFI with respect to those pregnant at d36. In addition, to quantify the potential female performance at kidding and weaning, five productivity indexes were projected: (1) potential kidding index at d50, (PKId50), calculated as (OR × PRd50); (2) kid weight at birth simples (KWBS, kg), which considers the average birth weight of simple kids obtained from a previous study in the same herd [41]; (3) potential litter efficiency at birth (PLEB, kg head−1), which is calculated as (OR × PKId50 × KWBS); (4) potential litter efficiency at weaning-1 (PLEW1, kg head−1), which considers the average daily gain from birth to weaning (i.e., d21 post kidding) and is calculated for the SUPL and CONT groups as KWBS + (162 g × 21 d) and KWBS + (120 g × 21 d), respectively [41]; and (5) potential litter efficiency at weaning-2 (PLEW2, USD head−1), which is calculated as PLEW1 × price (USD) of 1 kg of KWBS.
The PLEW2 (USD head−1) was calculated as PLEW1 × price (USD) of 1 kg of KWBS. To define the boundaries of these indexes, some key assumptions were made. (1) Since this variable depends on the live weight (LW) of the kid at birth, it is assumed that a simple kid weighed an average of 8 kg of LW at weaning (21 d). (2) For the period between January and June 2023, the producers were paid MXP 1200 (Mexican pesos) per kid, considering that they are scarce at this time of the year. (3) The average exchange rate to settle obligations, denominated in USD to be paid in Mexico, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation for the period between January 1 and June 30, was MXP 18.1932 per USD 1 [42]. (4) Therefore, if one kid on day 21 post kidding weighs an average of 8 kg and is sold for MXP 1200, once we compute 1200/18.1932, each kg of weaned kid generates a value of USD 8.24. (5) Due to the inability to obtain the individual feed intake data for grazing goats, the intake values during the daytime grazing phase were assumed to be similar between experimental groups.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The research was carried out considering a completely randomized experimental design; previously, both the Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test were, respectively, performed to confirm normality and homoscedasticity of our data. These data did not require any type of adjustment or transformation before further analyses. Both parametric and non-parametric statistical analyses were performed. A linear mixed model was confirmed considering the fixed effects treatment, time, and their interactions for the repeated measurements across time variables. Time was included in the model considering the values collected on d −5, −1, and +15, (i.e., BW, BCS, and blood glucose levels). Also, because repeated measurements were performed in the same animal, the goats within treatment were considered as random effects; analyses were performed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS. Moreover, OR was compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test and, finally, the χ2 test was used for data relating to proportions. Because all the response variables were individually quantified, each goat within treatment was defined as an experimental unit. All statistical analyses were undertaken through the SAS program (Ver. 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

The response variables BW (44.4 kg), BCS (1.76 units), and serum glucose concentrations (60.8 mg dL−1) did not differ (p > 0.05) between treatments along with the experimental period. The same was true (p > 0.05) regarding the estrus induction response when the anestrus goats, either the SUPL or CONT groups, were exposed to the male effect (i.e., 84.21 vs. 68.42%). Nonetheless, differences (p < 0.05) concerning the percentage of GO (78.94 vs. 47.36%) as well as the OR (1.42 vs. 0.73) favored the SUPL goats (Table 1). In addition, an augmented percentage of multiple ovulations occurred in the SUPL goats (73.3 vs. 55.5%; p < 0.05), with no differences (p > 0.05) between groups regarding the number of single ovulations (26.6 vs. 44.4%; p > 0.05). Also, while PRd36 favored the SUPL goats, no differences (p > 0.05) emerged between groups at d50 of pregnancy; the last result is due to an augmented embryonic loss between d 36 to 50 of pregnancy registered in the SUPL goats. Interestingly, however, once the PKId50 was quantified (i.e., OR × PRd50), this response variable also favored (p < 0.05) the SUPL goats.
As previously mentioned, the kid weight at birth is considered the average KWBS (kg). Once this variable was considered to generate the PLEB (kg head−1), the SUPL goats depicted a 670% increase regarding the CONT goats; such a response variable was referred to as the litter weight (kg) per goat exposed to males within the treatment. Finally, the SUPL goats expressed an increased potential litter efficiency (PLE) at weaning (PLEW) expressed either as kg weaned (244%) or as USD income at weaning (245%) per goat exposed to males, with respect to the CONT goats.

4. Discussion

According to our working hypothesis, the use of feed wastes from a large-scale dairy cow production enterprise (i.e., intensive system) as targeted supplementation enhances the reproductive and economic outcomes of anestrus–rangeland goats (i.e., extensive system). Certainly, the PLE at kidding and weaning, expressed either as kg weaned and(or) USD earned at weaning per goat exposed to males during the out-of-season breeding period (25° N), favored the SUPL goats. Therefore, based on the obtained reproductive and economic outcomes, our working hypothesis is not rejected. In fact, although no differences occurred in the GIE and PRd50 variables, augments in the phenotypic expression of the response variables OR, PRd36, EMO, PKId50, KWBS, PLEB, as well as PLEW1 kg head−1, and PLEW2 USD head−1, occurred in the previously anestrus goats receiving feed leftovers from a dairy cow enterprise in northern Mexico. The last result was observed despite no differences in BW, BCS, and serum glucose concentrations occurring between the experimental groups.
In our study, OR favored the SUPL goats (i.e., 1.42 vs. 0.73). Interestingly, when evaluating the PRd36 results, the SUPL goats depicted the largest value, but once the pregnancy rate was evaluated at d50 (i.e., PRd50), no differences emerged between groups; the last result is because an increased EMO was observed in the SUPL goats. Systemic progesterone (i.e., P4) affects embryo survival rate observing a positive correlation between such variables. Nonetheless, low P4 concentrations have been associated with enhanced nutrition since it promotes an increased metabolic clearance rate of steroids (i.e., P4) related to an augmented hepatocyte metabolic function [43,44]. This preceding physiologic scenario may have affected the SUPL goats, especially because even at the end of the 1/3 of gestation period, the tiny absolute fetal growth rate would appear unlikely to be vulnerable to changes in the female’s nutrition plane [16]. However, we need to consider that the specific growth rate at this time of gestation (i.e., 1/3) is when organogenesis occurs and may make the embryo vulnerable to sudden physiological stress, causing embryo resorption (i.e., specific growth rate vs. absolute growth rate). As previously mentioned, OR dictates the upper limit of litter size at birth, which in turn reflects not only gestational litter size but also offers clues to maternal health status and intrauterine progression [16,17,18]. The observed OR in the SUPL goats surpassed the litter size at birth reported under an intensive production system (n = 7205) in diverse breeds, such as Saanen (i.e., 1.28) and Alpine (i.e., 1.36), and was equal to Granadina (i.e., 1.42) although smaller than that reported in Nubian (1.53) and Toggenburg (1.58) [28]. Moreover, the observed OR in the SUPL goats is within the range of litter size observed under different production systems, such as grazing conditions (i.e., Alpine, 1.34 kids) and goats without dominant biotype (WDB, 1.31 kids), under mixed production schemes (i.e., Granadina, 1.32; WDB, 1.48 kids) and stall-fed conditions (i.e., WDB, 1.45 kids) [45]. In addition, the PLEB (kg head−1) projected in this study (4.35 ± 0.6 kg; litter weight at birth) is larger than that observed in Granadina (3.8 kg), Saanen (4.1 kg), and Alpine (4.3 kg), and similar to Toggenburg (4.4 kg), although smaller than Nubian (4.6 kg); all goats were managed under stall-fed conditions in northern Mexico and mated under the natural breeding season [28].
The biological response variables female BW and weaning weight (WW) play a central role in defining the efficiency of any animal production system [46]. Some decades ago, the need to maximize productive outputs per female relative to their metabolic BW was highlighted [47]. Litter weight at weaning is an overall measure of the net reproductive rate per female exposed to sires; it reflects the kid’s growth rate ability and the female’s milk production and mothering ability, in addition to the net reproductive rate [21]. Moreover, the cost of production is proportional to the maintenance cost of females expressed as metabolic weight unit and defined as BW0.75 [28]. In our study, while no difference occurred between doe BW in both experimental groups (i.e., 44.4 kg), when exploring the relationship between PLEW-1/doe BW, as well as between PLEW-1/doe BW0.75, an augmented efficiency ratio occurred in the SUPL goats regarding the CONT group, with corresponding values of 17.4 vs. 7.1% and 45 vs. 18.4%. In ruminants, a general trend to observe the largest weaning weights generated by the heavier dams has been established, although the last result does not necessarily denote an augmented productive efficiency [48]. While an increased WW generally demands a heavier and larger doe, and consequently augmented inputs (i.e., feed intake) [49], in our study no differences in doe BW occurred between experimental groups, despite the increased PLEW expressed by the SUPL goats, either as kg weaned (244%) or as USD income at weaning (245%) per goat exposed to males as compared with the CONT goats.
Seasonal breeding in goats is certainly a restraint to maximize reproductive fitness where desired mating dates are not aligned with the natural breeding season [13]. The last result limits the possibility of offering either milk or kids continuously throughout the year. This is harmful not only for the goat farmer but also for the marketing of goat products and their consumers. For this reason, it is central to define alternative management practices, such as offering nutritional supplementation [14,15], especially in low latitudes, which should be preferably escorted with the use of socio-sexual cues (i.e., the male effect) [26]. The very interesting reproductive outcomes obtained from our study, especially the percentage of GO as well as the magnitude of the observed OR, exemplify the benefits of aligning both a targeted supplementation strategy and the use of socio-sexual cues to obtain promising results from a commercial point of view.
An actual consumer request is more efficient ruminant production of either milk or meat, requiring not only a reduction in the use of grain cereals but also efficient use of water, alongside a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [50,51,52,53,54,55]. Most studies addressing ruminant production efficiency have used the output/input ratios but with an individual animal efficiency approach [20,56]; studies inferring a more integrative flock efficiency have been quite occasional [21,28]. Moreover, this more integrative flock efficiency approach can even be potentially applied to the whole goat production system in the Comarca Lagunera. In fact, if we considered a census of 115,179 lactating female goats [57], with the adoption of this bio-economic strategy, goat keepers in the region would increase their potential annual income, just from the sale of kids, by close to 250%; that is, from MUSD 1.11 to MUSD 3.87.
To reach such a potential income increase, the outcomes obtained by the SUPL goats would consider that from the 115,179 goats in production, only 60,619 would give birth (i.e., 52.66%) according to the out-of-season PRd50. However, the rest of the reproductive goats (i.e., 47.34%) would still be mated in the normal reproductive season; both strategies would balance the equation regarding the proportion of kids to be sold across the year. If, on the contrary, we consider the attained results from the out-of-season CONT goats of the lactating goat inventory, only 42,432 would give birth. That is, only 36.84% would give birth according to the PRd50; still, 63.16% of the reproductive goats would be available to be mated during the natural breeding season. Therefore, dividing the reproductive flock of female goats into different proportions of both the out-of-season (i.e., with a high overprice kid sales opportunity) and the normal breeding season (i.e., with a standard kid price) goats would be an interesting strategy to maximize both kid production and economic revenues from the goat flock. Importantly, the income achieved by potential increases in milk production across the year under this nutritional supplementation and reproductive bio-economic strategy has yet to be quantified, being a central pending assignment.

5. Conclusions

Our study, based on the circular economy approach, proposed that offering a short-term supplementation with feed leftovers from a dairy farm (i.e., intensive system) will enhance the reproductive outcomes of rangeland-managed goats (i.e., extensive system). Therefore, we intended to obtain more integrative knowledge regarding the out-of-season bio-economic efficiency per goat exposed to males throughout the generation of productivity indexes such as the PLE at birth (kg goat−1) and the PLEW (i.e., d21 post kidding), from biological (i.e., kg goat−1) and economical (USD goat−1) perspectives. As hypothesized, all these bio-economic indices favored the supplemented group. Again, we can propose a kind of “Robin Hood Effect” [22], taking some nutritional efflux from a linear-industrialized dairy cow enterprise (i.e., intensive system) adapted toward a more circular goat-ranged production scheme (i.e., extensive system) enhancing the productive and economic out-of-season outcomes. Moreover, applying the obtained results from this specific study to the large-scale goat production system in the Comarca Lagunera—one of the largest dairy goat production hubs in The Americas—could certainly be promising based on the projected outcomes from this trial study. Undeniably, additional studies are surely needed to enhance our confidence regarding the feasibility of this connectedness strategy from a commercial standpoint between these extremely divergent ruminant production systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.S.-M., C.A.M.-H. and M.M.; data curation, M.G.M.-R., A.D.S.-M., C.A.M.-H. and M.M.; formal analysis, C.A.M.-H. and A.D.S.-M.; funding acquisition, C.N.-M., M.d.l.Á.S.-N. and J.R.A.; investigation, O.A.-G., A.S.A.-E., C.N.-M., M.d.l.Á.S.-N. and R.R.-V.; methodology, M.G.M.-R., C.A.M.-H., A.D.S.-M. and M.M.; project administration, C.N.-M., M.d.l.Á.S.-N., O.A.-G., A.S.A.-E. and R.R.-V.; supervision, A.D.S.-M.; validation, M.M., O.A.-G., A.S.A.-E. and R.R.-V.; writing—original draft, A.D.S.-M. and C.A.M.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All the experimental procedures were completed in accordance with the recommendations for ethical use, care, and welfare of animals in research at global (USA) and national (Mexico) levels. Besides, the animal study protocol was authorized by the Institutional Review Board with approval reference number: UAAAN-UL-050/22CA-MV-LN.

Data Availability Statement

None of the data were deposited in an official repository, yet information can be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Horacio Hernández and his family for providing their herd to carry out this study and Abril Ramírez, Javier Valencia, and Julia Morales for their technical assistance. We also acknowledge CONAHCYT Mexico for the scholarship awarded to María Guadalupe Machado Ramos.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported in this manuscript. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Crowe, M.A.; Hostens, M.; Opsomer, G. Reproductive Management in Dairy Cows—The Future. Ir. Vet. J. 2018, 71, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Redden, R.; Thorne, J.W. Reproductive Management of Sheep and Goats. In Animal Agriculture: Sustainability, Challenges and Innovations, 1st ed.; Bazer, F.W., Lamb, G.C., Wu, G., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 211–230. ISBN 978-0-12-817052-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. De Lima, L.G.; de Souza, N.O.B.; Rios, R.R.; de Melo, B.A.; dos Santos, L.T.A.; Silva, K.D.M.; Murphy, T.W.; Fraga, A.B. Advances in Molecular Genetic Techniques Applied to Selection for Litter Size in Goats (Capra hircus): A Review. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2020, 48, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, S.; Gao, X.; Jiang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Xie, H.; Pan, P.; Huang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Jiang, Q. Population Validation of Reproductive Gene Mutation Loci and Association with the Litter Size in Nubian Goat. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2021, 64, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fabre-Nys, C.; Gelez, H. Sexual Behavior in Ewes and Other Domestic Ruminants. Horm. Behav. 2007, 52, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Luo, J.; Wang, W.; Sun, S. Research Advances in Reproduction for Dairy Goats. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1284–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Datt, M.; Bhateshwar, V.; Rai, D.C. Importance of Body Weight, Age and Body Condition in Weaning of Goat Kids: A Review. J. Livest. Sci. 2023, 14, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Erduran, H. Crossbreeding of Hair Goats with Alpine and Saanen Bucks: Production and Reproduction Traits of Native Hair Goats in Supplementary Feeding in Different Physiological Stage in Natural Pasture-based System. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 203, 106494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Atoui, A.; Carabaño-Luengo, M.J.; Najari, S. Evaluation of a Local Goat Population for Fertility Traits Aiming at the Improvement of its Economic Sustainability Through Genetic Selection. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 16, e0404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guan, D.; Luo, N.; Tan, X.; Zhao, Z.; Huang, Y.; Na, R.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y. Scanning of Selection Signature Provides a Glimpse into Important Economic Traits in Goats (Capra hircus). Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gebre, K.T.; Yfter, K.A.; Teweldemedhn, T.G.; Gebremariam, T. Participatory Definition of Trait Preferences and Breeding Practices of Goats In Aba’ala, Afar Region: As Input for Designing Genetic Improvement Program. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gelasakis, A.I.; Rose, G.; Giannakou, R.; Valergakis, G.E.; Theodoridis, A.; Fortomaris, P.; Arsenos, G. Typology and Characteristics of Dairy Goat Production Systems in Greece. Livest. Sci. 2017, 197, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Robertson, S.M.; Atkinson, T.; Friend, M.A.; Allworth, M.B.; Refshauge, G. Reproductive Performance in Goats and Causes of Perinatal Mortality: A Review. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 1669–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Scaramuzzi, R.J.; Campbell, B.K.; Downing, J.A.; Kendall, N.R.; Khalid, M.; Muñoz-Gutiérrez, M.; Somchit, A. A Review of the Effects of Supplementary Nutrition in the Ewe on the Concentrations of Reproductive and Metabolic Hormones and the Mechanisms that Regulate Folliculogenesis and Ovulation Rate. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 2006, 46, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scaramuzzi, R.J.; Oujagir, L.; Menassol, J.B.; Freret, S.; Piezel, A.; Brown, H.M.; Nys, C.F. The Pattern of LH Secretion and the Ovarian Response to the ‘Ram Effect’ in the Anoestrus Ewe is Influenced by Body Condition But Not by Short-Term Nutri-tional Supplementation. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2014, 26, 1154–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fleming, T.P.; Lucas, E.S.; Watkins, A.J.; Eckert, J.J. Adaptive Responses of the Embryo to Maternal Diet and Consequences for Post-Implantation Development. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2011, 24, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fitz-Rodríguez, G.; De Santiago-Miramontes, M.A.; Scaramuzzi, R.J.; Malpaux, B.; Delgadillo, J.A. Nutritional Supplementation Improves Ovulation and Pregnancy Rates in Female Goats Managed Under Natural Grazing Conditions and Exposed to the Male Effect. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2009, 116, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Notter, D.R. Genetic Improvement of Reproductive Efficiency of Sheep and Goats. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2012, 130, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Raheem, K.A. Cytokines, Growth Factors and Macromolecules as Mediators of Implantation in Mammalian Species. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2018, 6, S6–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davis, M.E.; Rutledge, J.J.; Cundiff, L.V.; Hauser, E.R. Life Cycle Efficiency of Beef Production: I. Cow Efficiency Ratios for Progeny Weaned. J. Anim. Sci. 1983, 57, 832–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Ross, T.T.; Cardenas, M. Meat and Wool Production of American and Australian Lincoln Sheep in Mexico: A Bio-economical Approach. Wool Technol. Sheep Breed. 1996, 44, 92–99. [Google Scholar]
  22. Giorgino, A.; Raspa, F.; Valle, E.; Bergero, D.; Cavallini, D.; Gariglio, M.; Bongiorno, V.; Bussone, G.; Bergagna, S.; Cimino, F.; et al. Effect of Dietary Organic Acids and Botanicals on Metabolic Status and Milk Parameters in Mid–Late Lactating Goats. Animals 2023, 13, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Santiago-Miramontes, M.A.; Malpaux, B.; Delgadillo, J.A. Body Condition is Associated with a Shorter Breeding Season and Reduced Ovulation Rate In Subtropical Goats. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2009, 114, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Ross, T.; Hallford, D.; Hawkins, D.; Gonzalez-Bulnes, A. Effects of Body Condition and Protein Supple-mentation on LH Secretion and Luteal Function in Sheep. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2007, 42, 461–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zarazaga, L.A.; Guzmán, J.L.; Domínguez, C.; Pérez, M.C.; Prieto, R. Effect of Plane of Nutrition on Seasonality of Reproduction in Spanish Payoya Goats. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2005, 87, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fritz, R.; Jain, C.; Armant, D.R. Cell Signaling in Trophoblast-Uterine Communication. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2014, 58, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Machado-Ramos, M.G.; Meza-Herrera, C.A.; De Santiago-Miramontes, A.; Mellado, M.; Véliz-Deras, F.G.; Arella-no-Rodríguez, F.; Contreras-Villarreal, V.; Arévalo, J.R.; Carrillo-Moreno, D.I.; Flores-Salas, J.M. A Circular Economy Approach to Integrate Divergent Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Enhance the Out-of-Season Reproductive Performance in Goats. Animals 2023, 13, 2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Montaldo, H.H.; Meza-Herrera, C.A. Genetic Goat Resources in Mexico: Bio-Economical Efficiency of Local and Specialized Genotypes. Wool Techn. Sheep Breed. 1999, 47, 184–198. [Google Scholar]
  29. Granados-Sánchez, D.; Sánchez-González, A.; Granados Victorino, R.L.; Borja De La Rosa, A. Ecologia de la Vegetacion del Desierto Chihuahuense. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. Ambiente 2011, 17, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Miranda Wong, R. Caracterización de la Producción del Cultivo de Algodonero (Gossypium hirsutum L.) en la Comarca Lagunera. Rev. Mex. Agronegocios 2008, 23, 696–705. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cruz-Castrejón, U.; Véliz-Deras, F.G.; Rivas-Muñoz, R.; Flores, J.A.; Duarte Moreno, G. Respuesta de la Actividad Sexual a la Suplementación Alimenticia de Machos Cabríos Tratados con Días Largos, con un Manejo Extensivo a Libre Pastoreo. Téc. Pecu. Méx. 2007, 45, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
  32. NAM—National Academy of Medicine. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 1st ed.; National Academy of Medicine-Mexico and the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  33. FASS—Federation Animal Science Society. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, 3rd ed.; Federation Animal Science Society: Champaing, IL, USA, 2010; p. 177. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hervieu, J.; Morand-Fehr, P.; Schmidely, P.; Fedele, V.; Delfa, R. Mesures Anatomiques Permettant D’expliquer les Variations des Notes Sternales, Lombaires et Caudales Utilisées Pour Estimer L’état Corporel des Chèvres Laitières. Options Méditerr. Sér. A Sémin. Méditerr. 1991, 13, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  35. Luna-Orozco, J.R.; Guillen-Muñoz, J.M.; De Santiago-Miramontes, M.; García, J.E.; Rodríguez-Martínez, R.; Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Mellado, M.; Véliz, F.G. Influence of Sexually Inactive Bucks Subjected to Long Photoperiod or Testosterone on the Induction of Estrus in Anovulatory Goats. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2012, 44, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Guillén-Muñoz, J.M.; Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Santos-Jimenez, Z.; Rivas-Muñoz, R.; Luna-Orozco, J.R.; Mellado, M.; Véliz-Deras, F.G. Exposure of Sexually Inactive Males to Estrogenized Females Increased the Investigative and Consummatory Sexual Behavior. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2016, 173, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Patyal, A.; Gill, J.P.S.; Bedi, J.S.; Aulakh, R.S. Potential Risk Factors Associated with the Occurrence of Aflatoxin M1 in Raw Milk Produced Under Different Farm Conditions. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2020, 55, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Girolami, F.; Barbarossa, A.; Badino, P.; Ghadiri, S.; Cavallini, D.; Zaghini, A.; Nebbia, C. Effects of Turmeric Powder on Aflatoxin M1 and Aflatoxicol Excretion in Milk from Dairy Cows Exposed to Aflatoxin B1 at the EU Maximum Tolerable Levels. Toxins 2022, 14, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chemineau, P.; Daveau, A.; Maurice, F.; Delgadillo, J.A. Seasonality of Estrus and Ovulation is Not Modified by Subjecting Female Alpine Goats to a Tropical Photoperiod. Small Rumin. Res. 1992, 8, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alvarado-Espino, A.S.; Menchaca, A.; Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Carrillo-Moreno, D.I.; Zúñiga-García, S.; Arellano-Rodríguez, F.; Mellado, M.; Véliz, F.G. Ovarian Response is Not Affected by the Stage of Seasonal Anestrus or Breed of Goats When Using a Progesterone Injection Plus Human Chorionic Gonadotropin-Based Protocol. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2019, 204, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ortega-Muñoz, S. Efecto de una Complementacion Alimenticia Perio-Parto en la Sobrevivencia y el Peso Corporal de los Cabritos Nacidos en Otoño en el Norte de México. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Torreon, Mexico, 2010. Available online: http://repositorio.uaaan.mx:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/7630 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  42. DOF—Diario Oficial de la Federacion—Official Gazette of the Federation. Tipo de Cambio y Tasas. Secretaria de Gobernacion, Gobierno de Mexico. 2023. Available online: https://dof.gob.mx/indicadores.php#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 25 July 2023).
  43. Diskin, M.G.; Murphy, J.J.; Sreenan, J.M. Embryo Survival in Dairy Cows Managed Under Pastoral Conditions. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2006, 96, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Diskin, M.G.; Waters, S.M.; Parr, M.H.; Kenny, D.A. Pregnancy Losses in Cattle: Potential for Improvement. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2016, 28, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Montaldo, H.H.; Valencia-Posadas, M.; Wiggans, G.R.; Shepard, L.; Torres-Vázquez, J.A. Genetic and Environmental Relationships Between Milk Yield and Kidding Interval In Dairy Goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 370–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thompson, L.R.; Beck, M.R.; Buskirk, D.D.; Rowntree, J.E.; McKendree, M.G.S. Cow Efficiency: Modeling the Biological and Economic Output of a Michigan Beef Herd. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, txaa166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dickerson, G. Efficeincy of Animal Production-Molding the Biological Components. J. Anim. Sci. 1970, 30, 849–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Scasta, J.D.; Henderson, L.; Smith, T. Drought Effect on Weaning Weight and Efficiency Relative to Cow Size in Semiarid Rangeland. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 5829–5839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lalman, D.; Beck, P.A. Mature Cow Sizeand Impacts on Cow Efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aiking, H. Protein Production: Planet, Profit, Plus People? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 100, 4835–4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hoekstra, A.Y. A Critique on the Water-scarcity Weighted Water Footprint in LCA. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Flachowsky, G.; Meyer, U. Sustainable Production of Protein of Animal Origin–the State of Knowledge. Part 2. Aquirements, Objectives and Ways of Sustainbility Improvement. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2015, 24, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Flachowsky, G.; von Soosten, D.; Meyer, U. Contributions to a Sustainable Production of Food of Animal Origin. In Sustainable Agriculture Towards Food Security; Dhanarajan, A., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 197–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wu, G.; Fanzo, J.; Miller, D.D.; Pingali, P.; Post, M.; Steiner, J.L.; Thalacker-Mercer, A.E. Production and Supply of High-quality Food Protein for Human Consumption: Sustainability, Challenges and Innovations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1321, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Harrison, M.A.; Sheehan, J.J.; Seidel, G.E.; Mooney, D.F.; Rhoades, R.D.; Ahola, J.K. Evaluation of Biological and Economic Efficiency of the All Heifer, Nocow Beef Production System Using a System Dynamics Model Based on 6 Yr of Demonstration Herd Data. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 99, skaa405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Farrell, C.L.; Jenkins, T.G. Cow Type and Nuritional Enivironment: Nutritional Aspect. J. Anim. Sci. 1985, 61, 725–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. SIAP—Servicio de Informacion Agroalimentaria y Pesquera—Agrifood and Fishery Information System. Livestock Production Yearbook. 2023. Available online: http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx/repoAvance_siap_gb/pecAvanceEdo.jsp (accessed on 25 July 2023).
Agriculture 13 02079 g001
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental protocol of multiparous crossbred–rangeland goats (n = 38) (i.e., extensive system) receiving (SUPL) or not (CONT) consisting of nutritional supplementation with feed leftovers from a dairy cow enterprise (i.e., intensive system) in northern Mexico [27].
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the experimental protocol of multiparous crossbred–rangeland goats (n = 38) (i.e., extensive system) receiving (SUPL) or not (CONT) consisting of nutritional supplementation with feed leftovers from a dairy cow enterprise (i.e., intensive system) in northern Mexico [27].
Agriculture 13 02079 g001
Table 1. Means and frequencies ± standard error for goats induced to estrus (GIE, %), goats ovulating (GO, %), ovulation rate (OR, units), pregnancy rate-1 (PRd36, %), pregnancy rate-2 (PRd50, %), embryo mortality-d50 (EMO, %), potential kidding index-d50 (PKId50,%), kid weight at birth of simples (KWBS, kg), and potential litter efficiency either at birth (PLEB, kg) or at weaning (d21 post kidding) expressed as kg head−1 (PLEW1) or as USD head−1 (PLEW2) from multiparous crossbred–rangeland goats (n = 38) (i.e., extensive system) receiving (SUPL, n = 19) or not (CONT, n = 19) consisting of a nutritional supplementation of feed leftovers from a dairy cow enterprise (i.e., intensive system) in northern Mexico 1.
Table 1. Means and frequencies ± standard error for goats induced to estrus (GIE, %), goats ovulating (GO, %), ovulation rate (OR, units), pregnancy rate-1 (PRd36, %), pregnancy rate-2 (PRd50, %), embryo mortality-d50 (EMO, %), potential kidding index-d50 (PKId50,%), kid weight at birth of simples (KWBS, kg), and potential litter efficiency either at birth (PLEB, kg) or at weaning (d21 post kidding) expressed as kg head−1 (PLEW1) or as USD head−1 (PLEW2) from multiparous crossbred–rangeland goats (n = 38) (i.e., extensive system) receiving (SUPL, n = 19) or not (CONT, n = 19) consisting of a nutritional supplementation of feed leftovers from a dairy cow enterprise (i.e., intensive system) in northern Mexico 1.
VariablesGroups 2
SUPLCONT
Goats induced to estrus (GIE; %)16/19 (84.21)13/19 (68.42)
Goats ovulating (GO; %)15/19 (78.94) a9/19 (47.36) b
Ovulation rate (OR; n)1.42 ± 0.23 a0.73 ± 0.21 b
Pregnancy rate-1, d36, (PRd36; n, %)13/19 (68.42) a7/19 (36.84) b
Pregnancy rate-2, d50, (PRd50; n, %)10/19 (52.63)7/19 (36.84)
Embryo mortality, d50, (EMO; n, %)3/13 (23.07) a0/7(0.0) b
Potential kidding index, (PKId50; %) 374.74 ± 10.5 a26.89 ± 12.6 b
Kid weight at birth, (KWBS, kg, simples) 44.10 ± 0.6 a3.30 ± 0.6 b
Potential litter efficiency, birth, (PLEB, kg head−1) 54.35 ± 0.6 a0.65 ± 0.1 b
Potential litter efficiency, weaning-1 (PLEW1 kg head−1) 67.75 ± 1.1 a3.17 ± 0.6 b
Potential litter efficiency, weaning-2 (PLEW2 USD head−1) 763.92 ± 9.4 a26.12 ± 4.7 b
1 The SUPL group was supplemented from day −5 to +15 in relation to the mating period; d0 = onset of the experimental out-of-season breeding (i.e., 28 March to 7 April). SUPL = supplemented; CONT = non-supplemented. 2 Response variables with different superscripts between columns within the row differ (p ≤ 0.05). 3 Potential kidding indices at d50 (PKId50) calculated as (OR × PRd50). 4 Kid weight at birth considers the average birth weight of simple kids, KWBS, kg. 5 Potential litter efficiency at birth (PLEB, kg head−1) calculated as (OR × PKId50 × KWBS). 6 Potential litter efficiency at weaning (PLEW1, kg head−1) considered based on an average daily gain from birth to weaning (d21 post kidding), calculated for the SUPL and CONT groups as KWBS + (162 g × 21 d) and KWBS + (120 g × 21 d), respectively [41], and 7 potential litter efficiency at weaning-2 (PLEW2, USD head−1), calculated as PLEW1 × price (USD) of 1 kg of KWBS.
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

Meza-Herrera, C.A.; Machado-Ramos, M.G.; De Santiago-Miramontes, A.; Mellado, M.; Navarrete-Molina, C.; Sariñana-Navarrete, M.d.l.Á.; Arévalo, J.R.; Angel-García, O.; Alvarado-Espino, A.S.; Rodriguez-Venegas, R. Connectedness between Intensive and Extensive Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Generate Out-of-Season Bio-Economic Indices in Goats. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112079

AMA Style

Meza-Herrera CA, Machado-Ramos MG, De Santiago-Miramontes A, Mellado M, Navarrete-Molina C, Sariñana-Navarrete MdlÁ, Arévalo JR, Angel-García O, Alvarado-Espino AS, Rodriguez-Venegas R. Connectedness between Intensive and Extensive Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Generate Out-of-Season Bio-Economic Indices in Goats. Agriculture. 2023; 13(11):2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meza-Herrera, Cesar A., Maria G. Machado-Ramos, Angeles De Santiago-Miramontes, Miguel Mellado, Cayetano Navarrete-Molina, Maria de los Ángeles Sariñana-Navarrete, José R. Arévalo, Oscar Angel-García, Alan S. Alvarado-Espino, and Rafael Rodriguez-Venegas. 2023. "Connectedness between Intensive and Extensive Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Generate Out-of-Season Bio-Economic Indices in Goats" Agriculture 13, no. 11: 2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112079

APA Style

Meza-Herrera, C. A., Machado-Ramos, M. G., De Santiago-Miramontes, A., Mellado, M., Navarrete-Molina, C., Sariñana-Navarrete, M. d. l. Á., Arévalo, J. R., Angel-García, O., Alvarado-Espino, A. S., & Rodriguez-Venegas, R. (2023). Connectedness between Intensive and Extensive Ruminant Production Systems: Using Dairy Cow Feed Leftovers to Generate Out-of-Season Bio-Economic Indices in Goats. Agriculture, 13(11), 2079. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112079

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop