Comparison of controlled internal drug release insert-based protocols to synchronize estrus in prepubertal and estrous-cycling beef heifers.

The objective of the experiment was to examine the necessity of adding a GnRH injection to a 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)-based protocol for synchronization of estrus in beef heifers that were prepubertal or estrous-cycling at the initiation of treatment. The hypothesis tested was that the addition of GnRH in a CIDR-based estrus synchronization protocol would increase the synchrony of estrus after PGF(2alpha) (PG). Beef heifers (n = 285) were assigned to 1 of 2 treatments within reproductive tract scores (2 or 3 = prepubertal; 4 or 5 = estrous-cycling) by age and BW. Heifers assigned to CIDR Select received a CIDR insert (1.38 g of progesterone) from d 0 to 14 followed by GnRH (100 microg, intramuscularly) on d 23 and PG (25 mg intramuscularly) on d 30. Heifers assigned to CIDR-PG received a CIDR insert from d 0 to 14 and PG on d 30. Heifers were fitted with a HeatWatch estrus detection system transmitter at the time of PG administration for continuous estrus detection during the synchronized period (0 to 144 h after PG); AI was performed 12 h after estrus onset. Estrous response did not differ (P = 0.43) between treatments (94% CIDR Select, 98% CIDR-PG). Mean interval to estrus after PG was 7 h shorter (P = 0.01) and variance for interval to estrus was reduced (P < 0.01) among CIDR-PG-treated compared with CIDR Select-treated heifers. Conception rate to AI tended (P = 0.09) to be greater for CIDR-PG heifers (67%) compared with CIDR Select heifers (58%), and AI pregnancy rate was greater (P = 0.05) for CIDR-PG heifers (66%) compared with CIDR Select heifers (55%). Final pregnancy rate at the end of the breeding season was similar for the 2 treatments (81% for both; P = 0.94). We conclude that the administration of GnRH 9 d after CIDR removal in the CIDR Select protocol is not required to facilitate an improvement in the synchrony of estrus in beef heifers.

Leitman NR ，Busch DC ，Wilson DJ ，Mallory DA ，Ellersieck MR ，Smith MF ，Patterson DJ ... -  《-》

Comparison of protocols to synchronize estrus and ovulation in estrous-cycling and prepubertal beef heifers.

The objective of the experiment was to compare follicular dynamics, ovulatory response to GnRH, and synchrony of estrus and ovulation among estrous-cycling and prepubertal beef heifers synchronized with a controlled internal drug-release (CIDR)- based or GnRH-PGF(2alpha) (PG) protocol. Estrous-cycling beef heifers were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments (C1, C2, C3, C4), and prepubertal beef heifers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments (P1, P2) by age and BW. Blood samples were taken 10 and 1 d before treatment to confirm estrous cyclicity status (progesterone > or =0.5 ng/mL estrous cycling). The CIDR Select (C1, n = 12; P1, n = 14)-treated heifers received a CIDR insert (1.38 g of progesterone) from d 0 to 14, GnRH (100 microg, i.m.) on d 23, and PG (25 mg, i.m.) on d 30. Select Synch + CIDR (C2, n = 12; P2, n = 11)-treated heifers received a CIDR insert and GnRH on d 23 and PG at CIDR removal on d 30. The CIDR-PG (C3, n = 12)-treated heifers received a CIDR insert on d 23 and PG at CIDR removal on d 30. Select Synch (C4, n = 12)-treated heifers received GnRH on d 23 and PG on d 30. HeatWatch transmitters were fitted at CIDR removal (C1, C2, C3, P1, and P2) or at GnRH administration (C4) for estrus detection. Ultrasound was used to determine the response to GnRH and the timing of ovulation after estrus. Among the estrous-cycling heifers, ovulatory response to GnRH and estrous response did not differ (P > 0.05). Among the prepubertal heifers, more (P = 0.02) P1 heifers responded to GnRH than P2 heifers, but estrous response did not differ (P > 0.05). Among the estrous-cycling heifers, variance for interval to estrus after PG was reduced (P < 0.05) for C1 compared with each of the other treatments, and C3 [corrected] was reduced (P < 0.05) compared with C2 [corrected] Variance for interval to ovulation after PG was reduced (P < 0.05) for C1 compared with each of the other treatments. Among the prepubertal heifers, there was no difference (P > 0.05) in variance for interval to estrus or ovulation. Results from C1 and P1 (T1) and C2 and P2 (T2) were combined to compare T1 and T2 among mixed groups of estrous-cycling and prepubertal heifers. Response to GnRH was greater (P < 0.01; 81% T1 and 39% T2), and variances for interval to estrus and ovulation for T1 were reduced (P < 0.01) compared with T2. In summary, CIDR Select improved (P < 0.01) the synchrony of estrus and ovulation compared with Select Synch + CIDR.

Leitman NR ，Busch DC ，Bader JF ，Mallory DA ，Wilson DJ ，Lucy MC ，Ellersieck MR ，Smith MF ，Patterson DJ ... -  《-》

Comparison of progestin-based estrus synchronization protocols before fixed-time artificial insemination on pregnancy rate in beef heifers.

The objective of the experiment was to compare pregnancy rates resulting from fixed-time AI after administration of either 1 of 2 controlled internal drug release (CIDR)-based protocols. Heifers at 3 locations (location 1, n = 78; location 2, n = 61; and location 3, n = 78) were assigned to 1 of 2 treatments within reproductive tract scores (1 = immature to 5 = cycling) by age and BW. Heifers assigned to CIDR Select received a CIDR insert (1.38 g of progesterone) from d 0 to 14 followed by GnRH (100 mug, i.m.) 9 d after CIDR removal (d 23) and PGF2alpha (PG, 25 mg, i.m.) 7 d after GnRH treatment (d 30). Heifers assigned to CO-Synch + CIDR were administered GnRH and received a CIDR insert on d 23 and PG and CIDR removal on d 30. Heifers at location 1 were fitted with a HeatWatch estrus detection system transmitter from the time of PG until 24 d after fixed-time AI to allow for continuous estrus detection. Artificial insemination was performed at predetermined fixed times for heifers in both treatments at 72 or 54 h after PG for the CIDR Select and CO-Synch + CIDR groups, respectively. All heifers were administered GnRH at the time of AI. Blood samples were collected 10 d before and immediately before treatment initiation (d 0) to determine pretreatment estrous cyclicity (progesterone > or = 0.5 ng/mL). At location 1, the estrous response during the synchronized period was greater (P = 0.06; 87 vs. 69%, respectively), and the variance for interval to estrus after PG was reduced among CIDR Select- (P < 0.01) compared with CO-Synch + CIDR-treated heifers. Fixed-time AI pregnancy rates were significantly greater (P = 0.02) after the CIDR Select protocol (62%) compared with the CO-Synch + CIDR protocol (47%). In summary, the CIDR Select protocol resulted in a greater and more synchronous estrous response and significantly greater fixed-time AI pregnancy rates compared with the CO-Synch + CIDR protocol.

Busch DC ，Wilson DJ ，Schafer DJ ，Leitman NR ，Haden JK ，Ellersieck MR ，Smith MF ，Patterson DJ ... -  《-》

Comparison of long-term CIDR-based protocols to synchronize estrus in beef heifers.

Two experiments evaluated long-term controlled internal drug release (CIDR) insert-based protocols to synchronize estrus and compare differences in their potential ability to facilitate fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) in beef heifers. In Experiment 1 estrous cycling heifers (n=85) were assigned to one of two treatments by age and body weight (BW). Heifers with T1 received a CIDR from days 0 to 14, gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) on day 23, and prostaglandin F(2 alpha) (PG) on day 30. Heifers with T2 received a CIDR from days 2 to 16, GnRH on day 23, and PG on day 30. Ovaries were evaluated by ultrasonography on days 23 and 25 to determine ovulatory response to GnRH. In Experiment 2 heifers (n=353) were assigned within reproductive tract scores by age and BW to one of four treatments. Heifers in T1 and T2 received the same treatments described in Experiment 1. Heifers in T3 and T4 received the same treatments as T1 and T2, respectively, minus the addition of GnRH. In Experiments 1 and 2, heifers were fitted with HeatWatch transmitters for estrous detection and AI was performed 12h after estrus. In Experiment 1 heifers assigned to T1 had larger dominant follicles at GnRH compared to T2 (P<0.01) but response to GnRH, estrous response after PG, mean interval to estrus, and variance for interval to estrus after PG did not differ (P>0.10). AI conception and final pregnancy rate were similar (P>0.50). In Experiment 2 estrous response after PG did not differ (P>0.70). Differences in mean interval to estrus and variance for interval to estrus (P<0.05) differed based on the three-way interaction of treatment length, GnRH, and estrous cyclicity status. AI conception and final pregnancy rates were similar (P>0.10). In summary, the greater estrous response following PG and resulting AI conception and final pregnancy rates reported for heifers assigned to the two treatments in Experiment 1 and among the four treatments in Experiment 2 suggest that each of these long-term CIDR-based protocols was effective in synchronizing estrus in prepubertal and estrous cycling beef heifers. However, the three-way interaction involving treatment length, GnRH, and estrous cyclicity status in Experiment 2 clearly suggests that further evaluation of long-term CIDR-based protocols is required with and without the addition of GnRH and on the basis of estrous cyclicity status to determine the efficacy of these protocols for use in facilitating FTAI.

Leitman NR ，Busch DC ，Mallory DA ，Wilson DJ ，Ellersieck MR ，Smith MF ，Patterson DJ ... -  《-》

Comparison of long-term progestin-based estrus synchronization protocols in beef heifers.

Two experiments evaluated long-term progestin-based estrus-synchronization programs on the basis of potential for use in facilitating fixed-time AI in estrous cycling and prepubertal beef heifers. In Exp. 1, heifers were assigned to 1 of 2 treatments by age, BW, and estrous cyclicity status. Heifers assigned to the melengestrol acetate-PGF(2α) protocol (MGA-PG; n = 50) received MGA (0.5 mg·animal(-1)·d(-1)) in a 1.0-kg carrier from d 0 to 13 and were administered PGF(2α) (25 mg, intramuscularly) 19 d after MGA withdrawal (d 32). Heifers assigned to the Show-Me-Synch protocol (n = 49) received a controlled internal drug release (CIDR) insert (1.38 g of progesterone) from d 2 to 16 followed by PGF(2α) administration 16 d after CIDR removal (d 32). All heifers were fitted with HeatWatch estrus-detection transmitters at the time of progestin removal for continuous estrus detection through the synchronized period after PGF(2α). In Exp. 2, heifers (n = 396) were assigned to the same 2 treatments described in Exp. 1 by age, BW, and reproductive tract score. Heifers in Exp. 2, however, were fitted with HeatWatch estrus-detection transmitters at PGF(2α) to characterize estrus-distribution patterns during the synchronized period after PGF(2α). Heifers in both experiments were inseminated approximately 12 h after the onset of estrus. In Exp. 1, estrous response after PGF(2α) and mean interval to estrus after PGF(2α) did not differ between MGA-PG and Show-Me-Synch treatments (P = 0.97). The variance for interval to estrus after PGF(2α) tended (P = 0.06) to be reduced among MGA-PG-treated heifers compared with Show-Me-Synch-treated heifers. Conception to AI, AI pregnancy, and final pregnancy rates did not differ (P > 0.1) between treatments. In Exp. 2, estrous response after PGF(2α) was greater (P = 0.01) among Show-Me-Synch-treated heifers (92%) compared with MGA-PG-treated heifers (85%); however, mean interval to estrus after PGF(2α) did not differ (P = 0.74) between MGA-PG (57.4 ± 2.5 h) and Show-Me-Synch (56.2 ± 2.5 h) treatments. The variance for interval to estrus after PGF(2α) was reduced (P < 0.01) among Show-Me-Synch-treated vs. MGA-PG-treated heifers. Conception to AI, AI pregnancy, and final pregnancy rates did not differ (P > 0.1) between treatments. In summary, the Show-Me-Synch protocol compared favorably with the MGA-PG protocol on the basis of estrous response, synchrony of estrus, and resulting fertility after treatment administration.

Mallory DA ，Wilson DJ ，Busch DC ，Ellersieck MR ，Smith MF ，Patterson DJ ... -  《-》