Next Article in Journal
Soil Mineral Nitrogen and Mobile Organic Carbon as Affected by Winter Wheat Strip Tillage and Forage Legume Intercropping
Previous Article in Journal
Improving the Storage Quality of Ready-to-Eat Clementine Fruits Using Lemon By-Products
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/agriculture14091487
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

A Study of the Impact of Surgical Correction of Left Abomasal Displacement on Fertility Parameters in Lactating Holstein Cows

by
Ioannis Nanas
1,
Eleni Dovolou
2,
Katerina Dadouli
3,
Ilias Ramouzis
4 and
Georgios S. Amiridis
1,*
1
Department of Obstetrics & Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Thessaly, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
2
Laboratory of Reproduction, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Thessaly, 41334 Larissa, Greece
3
Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41334 Larissa, Greece
4
Independent Researcher, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(9), 1487; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091487
Submission received: 30 July 2024 / Revised: 19 August 2024 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published: 1 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Farm Animal Production)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The left displacement of the abomasum (LDA) is a common condition in dairy cows that can significantly impact their welfare, productivity, and fertility. This study was carried out in Greek dairy farms over a period of 3 years. To ensure early detection, the farmers were trained to accurately identify the disease. The reproductive performance and milk production of 306 cows was assessed by considering the time to the first estrus, the calving-to-conception interval, and the number of artificial inseminations required for the establishment of pregnancy. Uterine health status, the timing of disease diagnosis, and the season of the year were also evaluated. In a separate study, the outcomes of 26 cases where cows suffered LDA and underwent surgical treatment with a delay of at least one week from disease onset, were compared to those of cases promptly treated. The results indicate that even early identification and treatment of LDA affects fertility and milk yield; these impacts worsen with the co-existence of uterine infections of affected. However, in late-treated cases, all reproductive and production indices show significant deterioration. Our findings suggest that timely diagnosis of the disease, preferably by the farmer, ensures minimal losses in cows affected by LDA.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Left abomasum displacement (LDA) is nowadays a very common disorder in dairy cows. The condition is characterized by gas and fluid filled abomasum, which occupies part of the left side of the abdomen, being embedded between rumen and the left lateral abdominal wall [1]. This condition results in reduced appetite—principally for high-energy feeds—severe drops in milk yield, discomfort, colic, and sometimes death. Although many risk factors such as dystocia, birth of twins, retained foetal membranes, hypocalcaemia, and ketosis, have been identified, the exact aetiology of LDA is, to a large extent, still unknown [2,3,4]. The high-risk period of LDA is typically within the first month postpartum, coinciding with the period when uterine infections and various metabolic diseases are manifested, which are also considered as predisposing factors to LDA [5]. All contributing factors lead to two distinct pathogenic pathways; (a) reduced motility or even stasis of the abomasum and (b) profound gas production, ultimately resulting in displacement of the organ [6].
The medical management of LDA includes various approaches from the simple rolling of the cow, the surgical correction of the displacement, followed by omentopexy or abomasopexy, as well as less invasive techniques, which comprise the bar—suture or the toggle-pin suture techniques [5,7].
In the dairy cow, high reproductive efficiency requires disease-free puerperium and transition periods that —to a large extent—ensure a high submission rate to the first post-partum (pp) artificial insemination (A.I.). Early resumption of ovulation and thereafter maintenance of ovarian cyclicity are the cornerstones for an efficient reproductive performance, which is eventually manifested as yearly calvings. During the early post-partum period, the disease prevalence in dairy cows is very high, reaching to 50% in high producing animals [8]; this is because during the transition period, cows are extremely susceptible to infectious and metabolic diseases, mainly due to immunosuppression and exposure to negative energy balance [9,10]. The incidences of these metabolic and infectious diseases and their associations with risk factors around the transition period have been previously reported, highlighting the increased risks for reduced productivity, suboptimal fertility, and death or culling [11,12,13]. Many epidemiological studies on the associations of diseases with fertility rely on farm-kept data, which inevitably lack consistency, suffer inaccurate definitions of the diseases, and, importantly, fail to ascertain the induction period of the problem.
As LDA typically occurs in early lactation, a critical period for the future productivity and reproductive performance of the cow, this study aimed to investigate (a) the possible effects of LDA and (b) the impact of time lapse between exposure induction and treatment of the LDA, on fertility indices and milk production. To achieve this, all cows in five dairy herds were closely monitored for three consecutive years.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

The study was carried out from January 2021 to December 2023 in 5 commercial dairy farms of Central Greece, with totally 1980 lactating Holstein cows. The herd size ranged from 285 to 520 cows, with an average milk yield of 9737 ± 916 L over a 305-day period.
Only multiparous (n = 375) animals were used in the study. Two hundred forty-nine (249) cows were divided into four groups: Group 1 (n = 93) consisted of cows diagnosed with LDA and uterine infection (UI), Group 2 (n = 83) included cows diagnosed solely with LDA, Group 3(n = 93) comprised cows with UI but without LDA, and Group 4 (controls, n = 80) consisted of healthy cows without LDA or UI. All studied LDA cases occurred until the 60th day post-partum.
During the three-year study period, a subgroup of additional 26 cases of cows suffering from both LDA and UI were left unattended for more than a week due to neglect, misdiagnosis by the farmer, or for various reasons. These cows were reported with a 8.5 ± 1.98 days delay. As it was impossible to accurately define the actual time of the onset of the disease, we considered as day of onset the day at which reduced feed consumption and sudden drop in milk yield was reported by the electronic monitoring system. These cows were diagnosed with UI and were, therefore, compared to the corresponding group (Group 1) of the early diagnosed—treated cows.
All herds followed a similar nutritional program based on a total mixed ration consisting of corn silage, alfa-alfa hay, wheat straw, soybean meal, corn and barley seeds, wheat brans, whole cotton seeds, vegetable fat, molasses, wet brewer’s grains, and vitamin–mineral premix. The animals were kept in open corrals with open sided cubicle shelter, fed twice daily, and had free access to drinking water. Cows were milked every twelve hours, at 07.00 and 19.00 h. An electronic monitoring system was installed in each farm, to track physical activity (estrus detection), and general health (SCR Cow monitoring system, Allflex Israel, in three farms, and Herdmetrix, Boumatic, Madison, WI, USA, in two farms). The voluntary waiting period for the first AI was 72 days. AI was performed by the farm owner using semen originated from Holstein bulls of known good fertility. Pregnancy diagnosis was routinely performed on days 29 to 36 post-insemination, by the determination of serum pregnancy associated glycoproteins using a commercial ELISA kit (DG29, conception animal, Quembec, Canada as described by Nanas et al. 2021 [14]) and pregnancies were confirmed by rectal palpation at approximately 60 and 120 days of gestation.

2.2. Study Design

Each LDA-exposed cow was paired with another cow from the same herd that calved within a week before or after the affected cow, but was not diagnosed with LDA. Exposed cows were matched to unexposed cows based on their UI status, as well.
To reduce the heterogeneity in the farmers’ ability to recognize LDA affected cows, and thus minimize the potential misclassification of exposure, before the initiation of this study all participating farmers were trained to detect the distinguishing ping sound at auscultation and percussion on the left rib cage of affected cows.
To assess the possible effect of the season, 145 cases from all groups were ana-lyzed. The seasons were categorized as winter (n = 32, December to February), spring (n = 31, March to May), summer (n = 34, June to August), and fall (n = 48, September to November).
All cows were followed for 6 months after calving; there were no losses to follow-up on. The recorded fertility parameters of interest were the time from calving to first estrus, the number of inseminations to conception, and the time from calving to conception, while milk yield during the first 100 days of lactation was also analyzed in all groups.

2.3. Diagnosis and Treatment

Every fresh cow, recognized by the electronic monitoring system with a sudden drop in dry matter intake and in milk production, was considered as suspect and immediately examined for the presence of LDA. The disease was initially diagnosed by the trained farmer. During the next 12 h, the affected cow was re-examined by one of the authors, and the displacement was surgically corrected, using right-flank omentopexy. Following surgery, the cow was treated intravenously with 500 mL of 35% dextrose solution (Dextrose 35%, Vioser, Trikala, Greece) supplemented with 2.5 gr butaphosphan and 1 mg of Vitamin B12 (Catosal, Bayer, Leverkuzen, Germany) and intramuscularly with dexamethasone (0.05 mg/kg, Dexadreson, Merck, Boxmeer, Holland) on one occasion. According to the uterine health status, the antibiotic treatment included either penicillin—streptomycin (4 mL/100 kg BW, mL/PENICILLIN STREPTOMYCIN 200/200; 200000IU penicillin and 200 mg dihydrostreptomycin/mL, Merk, Boxmeer, Holland) on three occasions given at 24 h intervals (cows without UI)—or ceftiofur hydrochloride, as described below for cows with UI. Flunixin meglumine (2.2 mg/kgBW, Finixin, Zoetis, Berlin, Germany) was administered every 12 h on four occasions. An oral 10% propylene glycol solution (2.5 L) was administered 48 h after surgery. For the two days following operation the cow was fed only alfa-alfa hay, wheat straw and molasses.
The uterine infections were diagnosed on the basis of poor uterine involution, purulent or red to brownish fetid uterine discharge. Affected animals during the first 20 days pp were treated 5 times at 24 h interval with ceftiofur hydrochloride (1.0 mg/kg Excenel, Pfizer, Belgium), and flunixin meglumine every 12 h in febrile cows. All ketotic cows were treated intravenously with 35% dextrose solution, Dexadreson and Catosal, followed by a propylene glycol drenching 24 h later.
Animals diagnosed after day 20 with chronic endometritis (purulent discharge) were treated with an intrauterine infusion of 500 mg of cephapirin (Metricure, MSD, Holland). Thirty to fifty days post-partum, all animals with UI were re-examined by rectal palpation to assess uterine involution. Those having poor involution or with purulent uterine discharge were excluded from the study.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Categorical data was described by frequency and relative frequency. The distributions of continuous variables were described by means (SD: standard deviations) and medians [IQR: interquartile range]. Continuous data was checked for deviation from normal distribution (Shapiro–Wilk normality test). If there was no violation from the normal distribution, One-way ANOVA was performed. If there was violation from the normal distribution, the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. Multivariable analysis was performed in the form of multiple regression and multinomial logistic regression. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify independent predictors of days to first heat, calving-to-conception interval, and milk production in the first 100 days postpartum.
The predictors evaluated were the time from diagnosis to treatment, days to operation, presence of uterine infection, and occurrence of LDA. The multiple regression models used can be expressed as follows:
Y = β0 + β1(Time from Diagnosis to Treatment) + β2(Days to Operation) + β3(Uterine Infection) + β4(LDA) + ϵ
where:
  • Y is the dependent variable (e.g., days to first heat, calving to conception interval, or milk production in the first 100 days).
  • β0 is the intercept.
  • β1, β2, β3, β4 are the regression coefficients corresponding to the independent variables (Time from Diagnosis to Treatment, Days to Operation, Uterine Infection, and LDA).
  • ϵ is the error term.
Additionally, multinomial logistic regression was used to assess these same predictors—time from diagnosis to treatment, days from calving to operation, uterine infection, and LDA—in relation to the number of inseminations required. The multinomial logistic regression model used can be expressed as:
log(P(Y = j)/P(Y = reference)) = αj + γj1(Time from Diagnosis to Treatment) + γj2(Days to Operation) + γj3(Uterine Infection) + γj4(LDA)
where:
  • P(Y = j) is the probability of the dependent variable Y being in category j (e.g., different levels of inseminations required).
  • P(Y = reference) is the probability of being in the reference category.
  • αj is the intercept for category j.
  • γj1, γj2, γj3, γj4 are the coefficients for the independent variables (Time from Diagnosis to Treatment, Days to Operation, Uterine Infection, and LDA) specific to category j.
For all the analyses, a 5% significance level was set. Statistical analyses were performed using R language (version 4.2.2) (R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/, accessed on 1 June 2024).

3. Results

3.1. The Sample

In three cases, LDA was detected on days 14, 17, and 19; but, on the next day, spontaneous recovery was diagnosed. In these cases, LDA was re-diagnosed on days 46, 35, and 21, respectively, and it was surgically corrected. In another case LDA diagnosis occurred on day 22, but the cow was re-examined prior to the scheduled operation and spontaneous recovery was found; no problem was detected thereafter. All these cases were not included in the study.
The mean (±SD) of the days post-partum at which the disease was diagnosed and treated were 27.4 ± 15.6 and 25.0 ± 16.1 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. All studied LDA cases occurred until the 60th day post-partum.
No statistically significant effects of season were observed on the number of days to first heat, the overall calving to conception interval or milk yield within the first 100 days (data are presented in Supplementary Table S1).
Based on the readings of a reliable [15] cow side test that was a handheld glucometer with the capability of measuring β-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA) in whole blood (Freestyle Precision, Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany), all LDA affected cows were ketotic (BHBA > 1.9 mmol/L).
The calving to first estrus and calving-to-conception intervals differed significantly among groups (p < 0.001), with the highest values being observed in group 1. No difference was detected among groups in the number of inseminations required for the new pregnancy (p = 0.849). Milk production in the first 100 days postpartum was significantly different among the groups (p < 0.001), with Group 1 having the lowest milk yield. Data are detailed in Table 1.

3.2. Impact of Time Lapsed from Disease Occurance to the Surgical Correction (Early Diagnosed versus Neglected Cases)

The impact of the time elapsed between the onset the LDA and the surgical correction on three dependent variables: days to first heat, calving-to-conception interval, and milk production in the first 100 days postpartum are presented in Table 2.
The mean number of days to first estrus was 11 days higher (p < 0.001) in cows that received delayed treatment. For each additional day to operation, the days to first estrus increase by 0.7 days (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.8, p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean days from calving to conception was increased (p < 0.001) by 25.7 days, while each additional day to operation increased the interval by 0.4 days (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.7, p = 0.007). The milk yield during the first 100 days was lower by 262 L (p = 0.025) in late treated cows, being less milk compared to those with early treatment, while the days from onset of the disease to treatment, although numerically different between groups, did not differ significantly (−5.0 L, p = 0.133). Finally, the number of A.I.s did not differ between groups (Supplementary Table S2).

3.3. Impact of the Days to Operation and the Presence of UI in Treated Cows

The impact of days to operation and the presence of UI on three dependents: days to first estrus, calving-to-conception interval, and milk production, are presented in Table 3. The models are adjusted for season.
The pp days to operation ranged from 3 to 60 days, and the day of the expression of the first pp estrus averaged at 67.7 ± 15.8 days. Each additional day to the operation was associated with an increase of 0.7 days to first estrus (p < 0.001). The presence of metritis did not significantly impact the days to first heat (p = 0.328). The mean calving-to-conception interval for treated cows was 105.3 ± 21.1 days, with each additional day to operation extending this interval by 0.4 days (p < 0.001). Cows without UI had shorter calving-to-conception intervals compared to those with UI; the presence of UI was associated with an increase of 8.3 days in the calving-to-conception interval (p = 0.006). Neither the days to operation, nor the presence of UI significantly impacted milk production. Finally, no association was found between the number of inseminations and the days to operation, the presence of UI, and the season of the year (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).

3.4. Impact of the Days to Operation and the Presence of LDA in Cows with UI

The days to first estrus, calving-to-conception interval, and milk production in the first 100 days postpartum are presented in Table 4.
Each additional day to operation increases the days to first heat by 0.7 days (p < 0.001). Cows with UI without LDA had 13.5 days shorter calving to first estrus interval compared to those with LDA. The day of operation increased numerically the calving-to-conception interval by 0.5 days for each additional day for the operation, but the presence or the absence of LDA did not affect neither the overall calving-to-conception interval (p = 0.819) nor the milk yield in the 100 days pp (p = 0.406) in cows with UI. However, each additional day to operation decreased milk production by 8.7 L (p = 0.008).

4. Discussion

During the three-year period, 7138 cows calved in the five farms (1911 heifers and 5227 multiparous cows), while 235 LDA cases were diagnosed (202 in multiparous and 33 in primiparous), which result in a three-year prevalence of 3.3%, which can be considered as slightly higher than should be expected [16]. In the present study, we provide for the first time evidence that late surgical correction of the LDA reduces the negative impact of the disease on fertility and production indices.
During the last 25 years, in parallel with high increases in milk yield per cow, the incidence of cows having reproductive cycle problems has been increasing at an alarming rate. This is reflected in the decrease of approximately 1% per year in conception rates at first post-calving AI [17]. However, in recent years this tendency is gradually reversing [18]. It is generally accepted that the causes of the impaired reproductive performance of dairy cattle are mainly attributed to a state of negative energy balance during the late pre-partum and early postpartum period [19,20,21].
In dairy cows, nutrient requirements increase many-fold early in puerperium in parallel with elevated milk production. If the cow is unable to increase dry matter intake to an extent sufficient to meet the demands of high milk production, a negative energy balance (NEB) condition is established, leading to impaired reproductive performance of the cow [19,20,22,23]. The pathways by which NEB affects reproduction in cows have been extensively studied and reviewed [22,24,25]. Briefly, it has been found that NEB extents the time from calving to first ovulation because it impairs the mode of LH secretion, reduces the follicular responsiveness to LH, and lowers the insulin and insulin-like growth factor I. Acting in concert, all these deviations end up suppressing oestrogen production from the dominant follicle which finally undergoes atresia rather than ovulation. Hence, delayed onset of estrus, and conception in the LDA affected cows could be attributed to the severe NEB they were exposed to, for at least 5 additional days.
As expected, milk yield in LDA affected cows was lower than in control herd-mates. In previous studies, it has been demonstrated that increased negative energy balance (increased NEFA and BHBA values) is an important predisposing factor for LDA [26,27]. In our study, all LDA-affected cows were ketotic. Given that the surgical correction was performed in most cases within 24 h at the latest, from the onset of the disease, one could assume that ketosis—even at subclinical status—pre-dated the diagnosis. This could be a contributing factor for the reduced milk production of the affected animals. Interestingly, in the UI affected animals, LDA interfered in a time-dependent manner with milk yield. While the overall 100 d milk production was not affected, the time at which LDA occurred was a significant contributing factor for milk production depression. We postulate that these cows suffered a prolonged subclinical ketosis which depressed milk production. On the other hand, in the 26 animals with the late LDA correction, the milk losses were 50% higher than their controls, which signifies the importance of early diagnosis and treatment on milk yield preservation that is strongly related to energy balance.
In animals with UI, the time of treatment affected the timing of the first estrus independently of the LDA status, but the time to conception was not affected by the LDA. The mechanism associating UI with impaired fertility has been excessively studied [28,29]. Many studies argue that there are effects of UI on the follicle and the enclosed oocyte for an extended period after the resolution of the inflammation [29]. It is believed that lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are the predominant factor leading the adverse effects of UI on the follicle and the endocrine support of ovulation [30]. The LPS that are gram-bacterial products, along with proinflammatory mediators (interleukins) and reactive oxygen species, invade the follicle, affecting oocyte quality and suppressing the steroidogenic capacity of the granulosa cells, further dysregulating the gonadotrophic support [29,30]. In our study, both LDA and UI equally affected the intervals to the first estrus and to conception. Interestingly, the effect of UI was the same in magnitude to that of the LDA (Table 1) which denotes that the two pathologies lead to the same outcome through different pathways, activated by the NEB and the UI. In fact, the deterioration of the reproductive indices and production level of the late-treated case (Table 2) is indicative that the combination of acute NEB with UI magnifies the adverse effects of each contributing factor.
Our finding that in all cases LDA does not affect the mean number of AIs per conception is in agreement with previously published studies [23,31,32]. However, these studies were focused on the effects of LDA on calving to the first AI interval, and to conception rates. The time from calving to the first AI mainly reflects a management, rather than a biologically imposed, decision. This is because the decision to perform an AI is influenced by several factors, such as the body condition score of the cow, the season of the year, the milk yield, the age of the cow, the possible milk production quota possessed by the farm, the availability of replacement heifers, etc. In our study, we evaluated the effects of LDA on the expression of the first postpartum estrus. This parameter was selected as a safe biological criterion to ascertain the occurrence of postpartum ovarian resumption of the cow. It is well known that in dairy cows, the first ovulation occurs 15–20 days postpartum and it is usually not accompanied by an overt estrus behaviour (silent heat); then (in a disease-free puerperium), the first pp heat should be expected to occur approximately 20 days later.
All LDA suffering cows were off-food; hence they were all exposed to an additional and severe–as indicated by the presence of ketosis–NEB status. The day pp at which the disease was diagnosed and treated had significant contribution (0.7 days) on the calving-to-conception interval. This means that the earlier the disease occurs, the lower the extension of the time to the next conception should be expected. It is well known that the lowest NEB level occurs in the second week pp; thus, the cows with LDA during the first two weeks pp had their LDA coinciding with the ‘naturally occurring’ NEB, which was later restored. However, if LDA occurs in later stages of lactation, both calving to first heat and calving to conception were affected, presumably because these cows were exposed to an additional severe NEB lasting for at least 4 days, as indicated by the increased NEFA levels. It is well documented that the detrimental effects of NEB on reproduction depend on duration and severity of the NEB. All cows suffering from LDA had complete inappetence, or they preferred to eat only roughages; the latter was not feasible, since in all farms a total mixed ration was fed; hence, the cows could easily be considered as being almost completely off-food.
Overall, in terms of reproductive indices, no detrimental deviations were observed, especially when the disease was promptly corrected. Previous studies revealed that although cows with LDA had extended calving to the first AI interval [7,33,34], the interval from calving to conception and the average AI per conception did not differ between cows with LDA and their non-affected herd-mates. However, it was postulated that the heavy culling rate at approximately two months postpartum might have masked some adverse effects of LDA on reproductive parameters [7]. Moreover, in these studies, no mention was made about the time-lapse between the possible establishment of the displacement and the diagnosis, and thereafter for the interval between diagnosis and treatment. In fact, in some studies, elevated glucose and insulin levels were reported in cows with LDA [35,36]. These findings suggest that the disorder was late-diagnosed, since the high glucose and insulin concentrations should be attributed to impaired vagal tonus [37]. The lack of culling and the uniformity in the interval from calving to conception between LDA affected cows and controls in our study should be sought in the early and accurate diagnosis as well as in the prompt and efficient correction of the displacement. Further, our results highlight the importance of early diagnosis and treatment to mitigate the, otherwise inevitable, losses caused by the LDA on fertility and production performance of dairy cows.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14091487/s1, Table S1: The effect of season on the days to first estrous, calving to conception interval, number of inseminations, and milk yield in cows with LDA. Table S2: Multinomial Regression Analysis of Number of Inseminations Required, with Predictors Including Days to Operation and Training of Farmers, for Dairy Cows Treated for LDA and Metritis. Table S3: Multinomial Regression Analysis of Number of Inseminations Required, with Predictors Including Days to Operation, Metritis, and Season, for Dairy Cows Treated for LDA. Table S4: Multinomial Regression Analysis of Number of Inseminations Required, with Predictors Including Days to Operation, Metritis, and Season, for Dairy Cows Treated for Metritis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.S.A., I.N. and E.D.; methodology, I.N., E.D. and G.S.A.; software, I.N., K.D., E.D. and I.R.; validation, E.D. and G.S.A.; investigation, G.S.A., I.N., E.D. and I.R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.N., K.D., I.R. and E.D.; writing—review and editing, G.S.A. and E.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geishauser, T. Abomasal displacement in the bovine—A review on character, occurrence, aetiology and pathogenesis. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 1995, 42, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Constable, P.D.; Miller, G.Y.; Hoffsis, G.F.; Hull, B.L.; Rings, D.M. Risk factors for abomasal volvulus and left abomasal displacement in cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1992, 53, 1184–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Coppock, C.E. Displaced abomasum in dairy cattle: Etiological factors. J. Dairy Sci. 1974, 57, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rohrbach, B.W.; Cannedy, A.L.; Freeman, K.; Slenning, B.D. Risk factors for abomasal displacement in dairy cows. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1999, 214, 1660–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rebhun, W.C. Diseases of Dairy Cattle; Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1995; pp. 124–128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Van Winden, S.; Kuiper, R. Left displacement of the abomasum in dairy cattle: Recent developments in epidemiological and etiological aspects. Vet. Res. 2003, 34, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Raizman, E.A.; Santos, J.E.P. The effect of left displacement of abomasum corrected by toggle-pin suture on lactation, reproduction, and health of Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 1157–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. LeBlanc, S.J.; Lissemore, K.D.; Kelton, D.F.; Duffield, T.F.; Leslie, K.E. Major advances in disease prevention in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 1267–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bell, A.W. Regulation of organic nutrient metabolism during transition from late pregnancy to early lactation. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2804–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Esposito, G.; Irons, P.C.; Webb, E.C.; Chapwanya, A. Interactions between negative energy balance, metabolic diseases, uterine health and immune response in transition dairy cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2014, 144, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ingvartsen, K.L. Feeding-and management-related diseases in the transition cow: Physiological adaptations around calving and strategies to reduce feeding-related diseases. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 126, 175–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pinedo, P.; Santos, J.E.P.; Chebel, R.C.; Galvão, K.N.; Schuenemann, G.M.; Bicalho, R.C.; Gilbert, R.O.; Zas, S.R.; Seabury, C.M.; Rosa, G. Early-lactation diseases and fertility in 2 seasons of calving across US dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 10560–10576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ribeiro, E.S.; Gomes, G.; Greco, L.F.; Cerri, R.L.A.; Vieira-Neto, A.; Monteiro, P.L.J., Jr.; Lima, F.S.; Bisinotto, R.S.; Thatcher, W.W.; Santos, J.E.P. Carryover effect of postpartum inflammatory diseases on developmental biology and fertility in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 2201–2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Nanas, I.; Chouzouris, T.-M.; Dovolou, E.; Dadouli, K.; Stamperna, K.; Kateri, I.; Barbagianni, M.; Amiridis, G.S. Early embryo losses, progesterone and pregnancy associated glycoproteins levels during summer heat stress in dairy cows. J. Therm. Biol. 2021, 98, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Panousis, N.; Kritsepi, M.; Karagiannis, I.; Kalaitzakis, E.; Lafi, E.; Brozos, C. Evaluation of Precision Xceed® for on-site monitoring of blood ß-hydroxybutyric acid and glucose in dairy cows. J. Hell. Vet. Med. Soc. 2011, 62, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Caixeta, L.S.; Herman, J.A.; Johnson, G.W.; McArt, J.A.A. Herd-level monitoring and prevention of displaced abomasum in dairy cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. Pract. 2018, 34, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Royal, M.; Mann, G.E.; Flint, A.P.F. Strategies for reversing the trend towards subfertility in dairy cattle. Vet. J. 2000, 160, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fricke, P.M.; Wiltbank, M.C. Symposium review: The implications of spontaneous versus synchronized ovulations on the reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 4679–4689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Opsomer, G.; Gröhn, Y.T.; Hertl, J.; Coryn, M.; Deluyker, H.; de Kruif, A. Risk factors for post partum ovarian dysfunction in high producing dairy cows in Belgium: A field study. Theriogenology 2000, 53, 841–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roche, J.F.; Mackey, D.; Diskin, M.D. Reproductive management of postpartum cows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2000, 60, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Van Saun, R.J. Prepartum nutrition: The key to diagnosis and management of periparturient disease. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 18–21 September 1997; American Association of Bovine Practitioners: Ashland, OH, USA; Frontier Printers, Inc.: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1997; pp. 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  22. Butler, W.R. Nutritional interactions with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2000, 60, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Butler, W.R.; Smith, R.D. Interrelationships between energy balance and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 1989, 72, 767–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bell, A.W.; Slepetis, R.; Ehrhardt, U.A. Growth and accretion of energy and protein in the gravid uterus during late pregnancy in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1995, 78, 1954–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. O’callaghan, D.; Boland, M.P. Nutritional effects on ovulation, embryo development and the establishment of pregnancy in ruminants. Anim. Sci. 1999, 68, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cameron, R.E.B.; Dyk, P.B.; Herdt, T.H.; Kaneene, J.B.; Miller, R.; Bucholtz, H.F.; Liesman, J.S.; Vandehaar, M.J.; Emery, R.S. Dry cow diet, management, and energy balance as risk factors for displaced abomasum in high producing dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. LeBlanc, S.J.; Leslie, K.E.; Duffield, T.F. Metabolic predictors of displaced abomasum in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Carvalho, P.D.; Souza, A.H.; Sartori, R.; Hackbart, K.S.; Dresch, A.R.; Vieira, L.M.; Baruselli, P.S.; Guenther, J.N.; Fricke, P.M.; Shaver, R.D. Effects of deep-horn AI on fertilization and embryo production in superovulated cows and heifers. Theriogenology 2013, 80, 1074–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gilbert, R.O. Symposium review: Mechanisms of disruption of fertility by infectious diseases of the reproductive tract. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3754–3765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheong, S.H.; Sá Filho, O.G.; Absalon-Medina, V.A.; Schneider, A.; Butler, W.R.; Gilbert, R.O. Uterine and systemic inflammation influences ovarian follicular function in postpartum dairy cows. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bartlett, P.C.; Grymer, J.; Houe, H.; Sterner, K.E. Cohort study of milk production and days to first insemination following roll-and-toggle LDA correction. Bov. Pract. 1997, 31, 83–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loeffler, S.H.; de Vries, M.J.; Schukken, Y.H. The effects of time of disease occurrence, milk yield, and body condition on fertility of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 2589–2604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Borsberry, S.; Dobson, H. Periparturient diseases and their effect on reproductive performance in five dairy herds. Vet. Rec. 1989, 124, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Domecq, J.J.; Skidmore, A.L.; Lloyd, J.W.; Kaneene, J.B. Relationship between body condition scores and conception at first artificial insemination in a large dairy herd of high yielding Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. DeCupere, F.; Muylle, E.; Van Den Hende, C.; Oyaert, W. Metabolic profile tests in high yielding normal cows and in cows suffering from abomasal displacement. Bov. Pract. 1991, 26, 129–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Itoh, N.; Koiwa, M.; Hatsugaya, A.; Yokota, H.; Taniyama, H.; Okada, H.; Kudo, K. Comparative analysis of blood chemical values in primary ketosis and abomasal displacement in cows. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A 1998, 45, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Holtenius, K.; Sternbauer, K.; Holtenius, P. The effect of the plasma glucose level on the abomasal function in dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 1930–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Reproductive Performance and Milk Production in Dairy Cows with Different Combinations of LDA and Uterine Infections.
Table 1. Reproductive Performance and Milk Production in Dairy Cows with Different Combinations of LDA and Uterine Infections.
Group 1
(n = 93)		Group 2
(n = 83)		Group 3
(n = 93)		Group 4
(n = 80)		p-Value
Days to first estrus
Mean (SD)69.3 (16.8)65.9 (14.5)63.4 (11.9)49.8 (12.5)<0.001 (K-W)
Median [IQR]68.0 [24.0]66.0 [21.0]62.0 [13.0]52.5 [19.3]
Calving to conception interval
Mean (SD)110 (22.5)100 (18.4)96.8 (19.4)91.3 (20.8)<0.001 (OwA)
Median [IQR]107 [30.0]97.0 [20.5]95.0 [25.0]89.0 [25.0]
Number of inseminations
115 (16.1%)17 (20.5%)16
(17.2%)		22 (27.5%)0.849 (C)
232 (34.4%)34 (41.0%)41
(44.1%)		29 (36.2%)
330 (32.3%)26 (31.3%)25 (26.9%)19 (23.7%)
413 (14.0%)6 (7.2%)11 (11.8%)9
(11.3%)
53 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (1.9%)
Milk in 100 days (lt)
mean (SD)4219 (501)4280 (574)4550 (482)4610 (390)<0.001 (K-W)
Median [IQR]4160 [804]4380 [1010]4540 [583]4470 [494]
SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range; K-W: Kruskal–Wallis test; OwA: One-way ANOVA; C: Chi-Square test. Group 1: cows diagnosed with LDA and uterine infection (UI), Group 2: cows diagnosed solely with LDA, Group 3: comprised cows with UI, but without LDA, and Group 4: consisted of healthy cows without LDA or UI.
Table 2. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Production in Dairy Cows Treated for LDA and uterine infections, after early or late diagnosis and treatment of the disease (neglected cases).
Table 2. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Production in Dairy Cows Treated for LDA and uterine infections, after early or late diagnosis and treatment of the disease (neglected cases).
Dependent: Days to First EstrusDependent: Calving-to-Conception IntervalDependent: Milk in 100 Days (lt)
Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)
Time from diagnosis to treatmentLate
(n = 26)		77.1 (15.4)Reference133.3 (25.4)Reference3982.1 (581.8)Reference
Early
(n = 93, group1)		69.3 (16.8)−11.0 (−17.1 to −5.0, p < 0.001)109.6 (22.5)−25.7 (−35.7 to −15.7, p < 0.001)4219.5 (501.2)262.0 (32.7 to 491.3, p = 0.025)
Days to operation[3, 60]71.0 (16.8)0.7 (0.5 to 0.8, p < 0.001)114.8 (25.1)0.4 (0.1 to 0.7, p = 0.007)4167.6 (526.6)−5.0 (−11.5 to 1.5, p = 0.133)
Observations: 119
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.351/0.339		Observations: 119
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.206/0.192		Observations: 119
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.054/0.037
SD: Standard deviation; CI: Confidence interval.
Table 3. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Pro-duction in Dairy Cows Treated for LDA, with (n = 93, Group 1), or without (n = 83, Group 2) uterine infection.
Table 3. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Pro-duction in Dairy Cows Treated for LDA, with (n = 93, Group 1), or without (n = 83, Group 2) uterine infection.
Dependent: Days to First EstrusDependent: Calving-to-Conception IntervalDependent: Milk in 100 Days (lt)
Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)
Days from calving to operation[3, 60]67.7 (15.8)0.7 (0.5 to 0.8, p < 0.001)105.3 (21.1)0.4 (0.2 to 0.6, p < 0.001)4246.2 (536.1)−2.9 (−8.0 to 2.2, p = 0.257)
Uterine infectionNo65.9 (14.5)Reference100.4 (18.4)Reference4276.1 (574.3)Reference
Yes69.3 (16.8)1.8 (−1.8 to 5.3, p = 0.328)109.6 (22.5)8.3 (2.4 to 14.2, p = 0.006)4219.5 (501.2)−51.8 (−211.5 to 107.8, p = 0.522)
Observations: 176
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.457/0.441		Observations: 176
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.157/0.132		Observations: 176
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.037/0.009
Models adjusted with season
Table 4. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Pro-duction in Dairy Cows Treated for Metritis with (n = 93, Group 1) or without (n = 93, Group 3) LDA.
Table 4. Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Reproductive Performance and Milk Pro-duction in Dairy Cows Treated for Metritis with (n = 93, Group 1) or without (n = 93, Group 3) LDA.
Dependent: Days to First HeatDependent: Calving-to-Conception IntervalDependent: Milk in 100 Days (lt)
Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)Mean (SD)Coefficient with 95% CI (Multivariable)
Days to operation[0, 60]67.2 (15.4)0.7 (0.6 to 0.9, p < 0.001)105.0 (22.2)0.5 (0.2 to 0.8, p < 0.001)4339.0 (518.2)−8.7 (−15.0 to −2.3, p = 0.008)
LDANo63.4 (11.9)Reference96.8 (19.4)Reference4552.8 (482.0)Reference
Yes69.3 (16.8)−13.5 (−19.7 to −7.3, p < 0.001)109.6 (22.5)−1.2 (−11.4 to 9.1, p = 0.819)4219.5 (501.2)−100.8 (−340.0 to 138.5, p = 0.406)
Observations: 186
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.372/0.350		Observations: 186
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.176/0.147		Observations: 186
R2/R2 adjusted: 0.130/0.105
Models adjusted with season
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

Nanas, I.; Dovolou, E.; Dadouli, K.; Ramouzis, I.; Amiridis, G.S. A Study of the Impact of Surgical Correction of Left Abomasal Displacement on Fertility Parameters in Lactating Holstein Cows. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091487

AMA Style

Nanas I, Dovolou E, Dadouli K, Ramouzis I, Amiridis GS. A Study of the Impact of Surgical Correction of Left Abomasal Displacement on Fertility Parameters in Lactating Holstein Cows. Agriculture. 2024; 14(9):1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091487

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nanas, Ioannis, Eleni Dovolou, Katerina Dadouli, Ilias Ramouzis, and Georgios S. Amiridis. 2024. "A Study of the Impact of Surgical Correction of Left Abomasal Displacement on Fertility Parameters in Lactating Holstein Cows" Agriculture 14, no. 9: 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091487

APA Style

Nanas, I., Dovolou, E., Dadouli, K., Ramouzis, I., & Amiridis, G. S. (2024). A Study of the Impact of Surgical Correction of Left Abomasal Displacement on Fertility Parameters in Lactating Holstein Cows. Agriculture, 14(9), 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091487

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