| Literature DB >> 33802721 |
Aitor Fernandez-Novo1, Sergio Santos-Lopez2, Jose Luis Pesantez-Pacheco3, Natividad Pérez-Villalobos1, Ana Heras-Molina4, Juan Vicente Gonzalez-Martin5, Susana Astiz4.
Abstract
In beef herds, increasing animal welfare, improving reproductive performance and easing animal management are key goals in farm economics. We explored whether delaying the removal of the intravaginal progesterone device by 24 h in heifers synchronized with a 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol could improve reproductive efficiency of fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI). In experiment 1, we examined the total synchronization rate (TSR) in cycling Holstein heifers. Heifers (13.4 ± 0.69 mo.) were randomly assigned to the standard 5d Co-synch 56-h protocol (5dCo56; n = 10), 5d Co-synch 72-h (5dCo72; n = 17), or the modified 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol, in which removal of the progesterone device was delayed by 24 h (6dCo48; n = 19). In experiment 2, 309 cycling beef heifers on 18 commercial farms were subjected to the 5d Co-synch 72-h or 6-d Co-synch 48-h protocol and conception rate (CR) studied. In experiment 1, the three protocols led no differences on TSRs of 80.0% (5dCo56), 88.2% (5dCo72), and 89.5% (6dCo48). In experiment 2, the CR from the beef heifers, observed during two consecutive reproductive seasons did not differ: 59.7% for 5dCo72 and 62.0% for 6dCo48 (p = 0.907). Therefore, delaying removal by 24 h provides satisfactory results without reducing reproductive efficiency of heifers.Entities:
Keywords: Co-synch; FTAI; conception rate; ovarian physiology
Year: 2021 PMID: 33802721 PMCID: PMC8002514 DOI: 10.3390/ani11030849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Characteristics of dairy heifers included in experiment 1, by fixed-time AI experimental protocols.
| 5dCo72 | 6dCo48 | 5dCo56 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replicates | Factor |
| M | SD |
| M | SD |
| M | SD | |
| R1 | Age (mo.) | 9 | 13.4 | ±0.57 | 10 | 13.7 | ±0.97 | 10 | 13.8 | ±0.99 | 0.235 |
| BCS (1–5) | 9 | 2.61 | ±0.22 | 10 | 2.65 | ±0.24 | 10 | 2.65 | ±0.24 | 0.91 | |
| SS (1–5) | 9 | 1.89 | ±0.78 | 10 | 1.3 | ±0.48 | 10 | 1.5 | ±0.7 | 0.192 | |
| P4 (ng/mL) | 9 | 10.57 | ±8.32 | 10 | 10.3 | ±7.14 | 10 | 9.49 | ±3.81 | 0.788 | |
| R2 | Age (mo.) | 8 | 13.3 | ±0.86 | 9 | 13.2 | ±0.86 | 0.437 | |||
| BCS (1–5) | 8 | 2.88 | ±0.23 | 9 | 2.78 | ±0.26 | 0.417 | ||||
| SS (1–5) | 8 | 1.5 | ±0.75 | 9 | 1.89 | ±0.78 | 0.273 | ||||
| P4 (ng/mL) | 8 | 9.23 | ±8.42 | 9 | 13.65 | ±5.59 | 0.29 | ||||
| All | Age (mo.) | 17 | 13.4 | ±0.69 | 19 | 13.5 | ±0.93 | 10 | 13.8 | ±0.99 | 0.222 |
| BCS (1–5) | 17 | 2.74 | ±0.25 | 19 | 2.71 | ±0.25 | 10 | 2.65 | ±0.24 | 0.682 | |
| SS (1–5) | 17 | 1.71 | ±0.77 | 19 | 1.58 | ±0.69 | 10 | 1.5 | ±0.7 | 0.765 | |
| P4 (ng/mL) | 17 | 9.94 | ±8.13 | 19 | 8.18 | ±7.12 | 10 | 9.49 | ±3.81 | 0.55 | |
Abbreviations: M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Age: age at study inclusion (Day 0); BCS = Body Condition Score at Day 0, R = Replicate; scale 1–5; SS = Stress Score (1–5) at Day 0; P4 = plasma progesterone concentration on Day 0; 5dCo72 = 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol with intravaginal progesterone device (IPD); 5dCo56 = 5d Co-synch 56-h protocol with IPD; 6dCo48 = 6-d Co-synch 48-h protocol with IPD. * p-value after Kruskal–Wallis analysis.
Figure 1Illustration of treatments and activities during experiment 1: 5dCo72 = 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol with intravaginal progesterone device (IPD); 5dCo56 = 5d Co-synch 56-h protocol with IPD; 6dCo48 = 6-d Co-synch 48-h with IPD; FTAI = Fixed Time Artificial Insemination; D = Day of the study; US = ultrasonography; BS = blood sampling; GnRH = gonadorelin; IPD = intravaginal progesterone device; PGF = prostaglandin; eCG = equine chorionic gonadotropin.
Characteristics of beef heifers included in experiment 2, by fixed-time AI experimental protocols.
| Factor | 5dCo72 | 6dCo48 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | SD |
| Mean | SD | ||
| Age (mo.) | 159 | 21.2 | ±3.76 | 150 | ±22.1 | ±3.36 | 0.222 |
| BCS (1–5) | 159 | 3.15 | ±0.42 | 150 | ±3.19 | ±0.55 | 0.682 |
| SS (1–5) | 159 | 2.09 | ±0.7 | 150 | ±2.05 | ±0.75 | 0.55 |
| P4 (ng/mL) | 60 | 5.49 | ±5.01 | 62 | ±6.01 | ±6.09 | 0.765 |
Abbreviations: SD = Standard Deviation; Age: age at study inclusion (Day 0); BCS = Body Condition Score at Day 0, scale 1–5; SS = Stress Score (1–5) at Day 0; P4 = plasma progesterone concentration on Day 0; 5dCo72 = 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol with intravaginal progesterone device (IPD); 6dCo48 = 6-d Co-synch protocol 48-h with IPD. * p-value after Kruskal–Wallis analysis.
Summary of synchronization results of dairy heifers in experiment 1 by synchronization days.
| Factor | Value | TSR (N/ | S-D15 ( | S-D7.5 ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCS | 2.5 | 85.2% (23/27) | 0.593 | 92.6% (25/27) | 0.238 | 88.9% (24/27) | 0.809 |
| 3 | 89.5% (17/19) | 100% (19/19) | 89.5% (17/19) | ||||
| SS | 1 | 87.5% (21/24) | 0.801 | 95.8% (23/24) | 0.818 | 87.5% (21/24) | 0.435 |
| 2 | 81.3% (13/16) | 93.8% (15/16) | 87.5% (14/16) | ||||
| 3 | 100% (6/6) | 100% (6/6) | 100% (6/6) | ||||
| Protocol | 5dCo72 | 88.2% (15/17) | 0.573 | 100% (17/17) | 0.472 | 88.2% (15/17) | 0.657 |
| 6dCo48 | 89.5% (17/19) | 94.7% (18/19) | 89.5% (17/19) | ||||
| 5dCo56 | 80.0% (8/10) | 90.0% (9/10) | 90.0% (9/10) | ||||
| P4-Day 0 | <0.6 ng/mL | 0.0% (0/1) | 0.846 | 100% (1/1) | 0.465 | 0.0% (0/1) | 0.161 |
| >0.6 and <7 ng/mL | 88.9% (16/18) | 100% (18/18) | 88.9% (16/18) | ||||
| ≥7 ng/mL | 85.2% (23/27) | 92.6% (25/27) | 92.6% (25/27) |
Abbreviations: BCS = Body Condition Score on Day 0 (scale 1–5); SS = Stress Score (1–5) on Day 0; 5dCo72 = 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol with intravaginal progesterone device (IPD); 5dCo56 = 5d Co-synch 56-h protocol with IPD; 6dCo48 = 6-d Co-synch 48-h protocol with IPD. P4-Day 0, plasma progesterone concentration on Day 0; TSR = total synchronization rate, SD-15 = synchronization on Day 15; SD-7.5 = synchronization on Day 7.5. * From logistic regression modelling.
Conception rates of beef heifers in experiment 2 and effect of the different factors analyzed.
| Factor | Class | N | CR ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | 5dCo72 | 159 | 59.7% (95/159) | 0.685 |
| 6dCo48 | 150 | 62.0% (93/150) | ||
| Breed | Charolais | 55 | 63.6% (35/55) | 0.581 |
| Limousine | 106 | 63.2% (67/106) | ||
| Crossbreed | 137 | 56.9% (78/137) | ||
| Spanish Black Iberian Avileña | 11 | 72.7% (8/11) | ||
| Stress | 0 | 68 | 61.8% (42/68) | 0.237 |
| 1 | 154 | 64.3% (99/154) | ||
| 2 | 84 | 54.8% (46/84) | ||
| 3 | 3 | 33.3% (1/3) | ||
| AI-Tech | 1 | 177 | 58.2% (103/177) | 0.269 |
| 2 | 132 | 64.4% (85/132) | ||
| P4-Day 0 | <0.6 ng/mL | 66.7% (10/15) | 0.900 | |
| >0.6 < 7 ng/mL | 60.3% (41/68) | |||
| ≥7 ng/mL | 61.5% (24/39) |
CR = conception rate; 5dCo72= 5d Co-synch 72-h protocol with IPD; 6dCo48 = 6-d Co-synch 48-h protocol with IPD. AI-Tech: technician who performed artificial insemination; P4-Day 0: progesterone plasma concentration measured on Day 0; * From logistic regression modelling.