Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:14:10.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of a progesterone (P4) intravaginal device (CIDR) on resynchronisation of oestrus and embryonic loss in previously timed inseminated dairy heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2009

M. A. Alnimer*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
*
Get access

Abstract

A study was done to evaluate the effect of using progesterone (P4) intravaginal device (CIDR: controlled internal drug-releasing dispenser) to synchronise the return to oestrus of previously timed inseminated (TAI) dairy heifers, and to evaluate embryo survival and pregnancy rate (PR) in the return to oestrus heifers. At the onset of the artificial insemination (AI) breeding period (day −9), heifers were randomly assigned into two groups (treated group CGPG, n = 79) and (control group GPG, n = 83). Every heifer in both groups was injected with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and prostaglandin F2-alpha (PGF) as follows: GnRH on day −9; PGF on day −2; GnRH and TAI on day 0. Heifers in both groups received TAI within 30 min after the second GnRH injection. Artificial insemination at first breeding was conducted for all heifers during 55 days from day 0. On day 14 after timed insemination, every heifer in the CGPG group received CIDR device for 6 days. Within 3 days after CIDR removal, more heifers in CGPG group showed oestrus within 1.9 days compared to heifers that showed oestrus within 2.9 days in the control. Within 10 days after CIDR removal, more heifers in the CGPG group showed oestrus within 2.4 days compared to heifers that showed oestrus within 6.7 days in the control. PRs on days 30 and 55 were not different between both groups, while PR on day 55 during September were higher (P = 0.032) in CGPG group (58.0%) than GPG group (37.0%). In addition, PR from first to second AI was higher (P = 0.037) for CGPG group (79.8%) than for GPG group (65.1%) but it was similar after that. Pregnancy losses between days 30 and 55 tended to be lower (P = 0.089) for the CGPG group (12.7%) compared to 25.1% for the GPG group. Interval between first and second AI was lower (P = 0.052) for the CGPG group (27.5 ± 1.6 days) compared to 31.6 ± 1.3 days for heifers in the GPG group but no differences were detected for intervals from second to third AI and from third to fourth AI between the two groups. Number of services per pregnancy was not different between CGPG and GPG groups. Results indicate that the CIDR device improved synchronisation to return to oestrus and increased PR to first AI during high temperature months by reducing embryonic losses.

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alnimer, MA 2005. Comparison of an oestrus synchronisation protocol with oestradiol benzoate and PGF and insemination at detected oestrus to a timed insemination protocol (Ovsynch) on reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows. Reproduction Nutrition Development 45, 699708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alnimer, MA, Lubbadeh, WF 2008. Effect of progesterone (P4) intravaginal device (CIDR) to reduce embryonic loss and to synchronize return to oestrus of previously timed inseminated lactating dairy cows. Animal Reproduction Science 107, 3647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chebel, RC, Braga, FA, Dalton, JC 2007. Factors affecting reproductive performance of Holstein heifers. Animal Reproduction Science 101, 208224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenault, JR, Boucher, JF, Dame, KJ, Meyer, JA, Wood-Follis, SL 2003. Intravaginal progesterone insert to synchronize return to estrus of previously inseminated dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 20392049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colazo, MG, Kastelic, JP, Mainar-Jaime, RC, Gavaga, QA, Whittaker, PR, Small, JA, Martinez, MF, Wilde, RE, Veira, DM, Mapletoft, RJ 2006. Resynchronization of previously timed-inseminated beef heifers with progestins. Theriogenology 65, 557572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, GA, Bennett, FL, Frederick, SP 2003. Factors associated with first service conception rates in artificially inseminated nulliparous Holstein heifers. Theriogenology 60, 6775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Zarkouny, SZ, Stevenson, JS 2004. Resynchronizing estrus with progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen in cows of unknown pregnancy status. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 33063321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erven, BL, Arbaugh, D 1987. Artificial insemination on US dairy farms. Report of a study conducted in cooperation with the National Association of Animal Breeders. NAAB, Columbia, MO, USA.Google Scholar
Ferguson, JD, Galligan, DT, Thomsen, N 1994. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 26952703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fricke, PM 2002. Scanning the future-Ultrasonography as a reproductive management tool for dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 19181926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fricke, PM, Guenther, JN, Wiltbank, MC 1998. Effect of decreasing the dose of GnRH used in a protocol for synchronization of ovulation and timed AI in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology 50, 12751284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanlon, DW, Williamson, NB, Steffert, IJ, Wichtel, JJ, Pfeiffer, DU 1997. Re-insertion of a progesterone-containing intravaginal device to synchronise returns to oestrus in dairy heifers. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 45, 1518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, PJ, Arechiga, CF 1999. Strategies for managing reproduction in the heat-stressed dairy cow. Journal of Animal Science 77, 3650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humblot, P 2001. Use of pregnancy specific proteins and progesterone assays to monitor pregnancy and determine the timing, frequencies and sources of embryonic mortality in ruminants. Theriogenology 56, 14171433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Looper, M, Bethard, G 2000. Management considerations in Holstein heifer development. Guide B-118. College of Agriculture and Home Economics-Cooperative Extension Service, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1989. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 5th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Orr, WN, Cowan, RT, Davison, TM 1993. Factors affecting pregnancy rate in Holstein-Friesian cattle mated during summer in a tropical upland environment. Australian Veterinary Journal 70, 251256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peckelhoff, H, Kuchenbuch, S, Kühne, S, Biedermann, A, Heuwieser, W 2000. Fruchtbarkeitsmanagement bei Färsendurch Ovulations synchronisation. Tierärztliche Praxis 28, 8892.Google Scholar
Peeler, ID, Nebel, RL, Pearson, RE, Swecker, WS, Garcia, A 2004. Pregnancy rates after timed AI of heifers following removal of intravaginal progesterone inserts. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 28682873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pursley, JR, Mee, MO, Wiltbank, MC 1995. Synchronization of ovulation in dairy cows using PGF2α and GnRH. Theriogenology 44, 915923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pursley, JR, Wiltbank, MC, Stevenson, JS, Ottobre, JS, Garverick, HA, Anderson, LL 1997. Pregnancy rates per artificial insemination for cows and heifers inseminated at a synchronized ovulation or synchronized estrus. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 295300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera, H, Lopez, H, Fricke, PM 2004. Fertility of Holstein dairy heifers after synchronization of ovulation and timed AI or AI after removed tail chalk. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 20512061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivera, H, Lopez, H, Fricke, PM 2005. Use of intravaginal progesterone-releasing inserts in a synchronization protocol before timed AI and for synchronizing return to estrus in Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 957968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, GL, Twagiramungu, H 1996. A fixed-time AI program using the GnRH-PGF-GnRH method for beef females. Journal of Animal Science 74 (suppl. 1), 462 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Santos, JEP, Thatcher, WW, Chebel, RC, Cerri, RLA, Galvão, KN 2004. The effect of embryonic death rates in cattle on the efficacy of estrus synchronization programs. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83, 513535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, EJ-P, Diaz, T, Drost, M, Thatcher, WW 1996. Use of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or human chorionic gonadotropin for timed insemination in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 74, 10841091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, MW, Stevenson, JS 1995. Fate of the dominant follicle, embryonal survival, and pregnancy rates in dairy cattle treated with prostaglandin F and progestins in the absence or presence of a functional corpus luteum. Journal of Animal Science 73, 37433751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (SAS) 2000. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 7. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Stevenson, JS, Johnson, SK, Medina-Britos, MA 2003. Resynchronization of estrus in cattle of unknown pregnancy status using estrogen, progesterone, or both. Journal of Animal Science 81, 16811692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Cleeff, J, Macmillan, KL, Drost, M, Lucy, MC, Thatcher, WW 1996. Effects of administering progesterone at selected intervals after insemination of synchronized heifers on pregnancy rates and resynchronization of returns to service. Theriogenology 46, 11171130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfenson, D, Roth, Z, Meidan, R 2000. Impaired reproduction in heat-stressed cattle: basic and applied aspects. Animal Reproduction Science 60–61, 535547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, ZZ, Burton, LJ 1999. Reproductive performance of dairy heifers after estrus synchronization and fixed-time artificial insemination. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 910917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed