Comparison of controlled internal drug release device and melengesterol acetate as progestin sources in an estrous synchronization protocol for beef heifers
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Бозмана, Montana, United States Theriogenology
(Impact Factor: 1.8).
08/2007; 68(2):162-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.03.027
The objectives of this experiment were to compare estrous synchronization responses and AI pregnancy rates of beef heifers using protocols that included either CIDR or MGA as the progestin source. The hypotheses tested were that: (1) estrous synchronization responses after (a) progestin removal, and (b) PGF(2alpha); and, (2) AI pregnancy rates, do not differ between heifers synchronized with either progestin source. At the start of the experiment (Day 0) in both years, heifers were assigned randomly to receive, MGA supplement for 14 days (MGA-treated; n=79) or CIDR for 14 days (CIDR-treated; n=77). On Day 14 progestin was removed and heifers were observed for estrus up to and after PGF(2alpha) on Days 31 and 33 for CIDR-treated and MGA-treated heifers, respectively. Heifers that exhibited estrus within 60h after PGF(2alpha) were inseminated by AI 12h later; the remaining heifers were inseminated at 72h after PGF(2alpha) and given GnRH (100mug). More (P<0.05) CIDR-treated heifers exhibited estrus within 120h after progestin removal than MGA-treated heifers. Intervals to estrus after progestin removal were shorter (P<0.05) for CIDR-treated heifers than MGA-treated heifers. More (P<0.05) CIDR-treated heifers exhibited estrus and were inseminated within 60h after PGF(2alpha) than MGA-treated heifers. Pregnancy rates did not differ (P>0.10) between MGA-treated (66%) and CIDR-treated (62%) heifers. In conclusion, the use of CIDR as a progestin source in a 14-day progestin, PGF(2alpha), and timed AI and GnRH estrous synchronization protocol was as effective as the use of MGA to synchronize estrus and generate AI pregnancies in beef heifers.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.