Effect of timing of prostaglandin administration, controlled internal drug release removal and gonadotropin releasing hormone administration on pregnancy rate in fixed-time AI protocols in crossbred Angus cows.
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of timing of prostaglandin F2(alpha) (PGF2(alpha)) administration, controlled internal drug release device (CIDR) removal and second gonodotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) administration on the pregnancy outcome in CIDR-based synchronization protocols. In Experiment 1, suckled Angus crossbred beef cows (n = 580) were given 100 microg of GnRH+a CIDR on Day 0. Cows in Group 1 (modified Ovsynch-P) received 25 mg of dinoprost (PGF2(alpha)) and CIDR device removal on Day 8 (AM), 100 microg of GnRH 36 h later on Day 9 (p.m.), and fixed-time AI (FTAI) 16 h later on Day 10 (47.5+/-1.1 h after PGF2(alpha)). Cows in Group 2 (Ovsynch-P) received 25mg of PGF2(alpha) and CIDR device removal on Day 7 (p.m.), 100 microg of GnRH 48 h later on Day 9 and FTAI 16 h later on Day 10 (66.6+/-1.2 h after PGF2(alpha)). Pregnancy rates were 56.5% (170/301) for Group 1 and 55.6% (155/279) for Group 2, respectively (P = 0.47). In Experiment 2, beef cows (n=734) were synchronized with 100 microg of GnRH+CIDR on Day 0, 25 mg of PGF2(alpha) and CIDR device removal on Day 7 and either 100 microg of GnRH 48 h later on Day 9 (Ovsynch-P) and FTAI 16 h later on Day 10 (64.9+/-3.3 h from PGF2(alpha)) or 100 microg of GnRH on Day 10 (CO-Synch-P) at the time of AI (63.2+/-4.2 h from PGF2(alpha)). Pregnancy rates were 48.8% (180/369) for Ovsynch-P and 44.7% (163/365) for CO-synch-P groups, respectively (P = 0.11). In both experiments, there was a locationxtreatment interaction (P<0.05); pregnancy rates between locations were different (P < 0.05) in the Ovsynch-P group. In conclusion, in a CIDR-based Ovsynch synchronization protocol, delaying administration of prostaglandin and CIDR removal by 12 h, or timing of the second GnRH by 16 h, did not affect pregnancy rates to FTAI. Therefore, there may be an opportunity to make changes in synchronization protocols with out adversely affecting FTAI pregnancy rates.
Kasimanickam
R
R
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, 24061, USA. drram@vt.edu
Collins
J C
JC
Wuenschell
J
J
Currin
J C
JC
Hall
J B
JB
Whittier
D W
DW
D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle / Q000502:physiology*; D015237:Dinoprost / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D016503:Drug Delivery Systems / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000662:veterinary; D004343:Drug Implants; D004973:Estrus Synchronization; D005260:Female; D005300:Fertility Agents, Female / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D007987:Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D006062:Gonadotropins / Q000378:metabolism; D007315:Insemination, Artificial / Q000662:veterinary*; D007774:Lactation; D011247:Pregnancy; D018873:Pregnancy Rate; D011897:Random Allocation; D013997:Time Factors
D004343:Drug Implants; D005300:Fertility Agents, Female; D006062:Gonadotropins; D007987:Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; D015237:Dinoprost