Two experiments were conducted during 2 yr to evaluate differences in ovulation potential and fertility in response to GnRH or hCG. In Exp. 1, 46 beef cows were given 100 microg of GnRH or 500, 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 IU of hCG. Ovulation incidence was not different between GnRH and any of the hCG doses, indicating that ovulatory capacity of at least 500 IU of hCG was equivalent to GnRH. In Exp. 2, beef cows (n = 676) at 6 locations were assigned randomly to a 2 x 3 factorial arrangement of treatments. Main effects were: 1) pre-timed AI (TAI) treatment (GnRH or hCG) and 2) post-TAI treatment (saline, GnRH, or hCG) to initiate resynchronization of ovulation in previously inseminated cattle. Blood samples were collected (d -21 and -10) to determine progesterone concentrations and assess cyclicity. Cattle were treated with a progesterone insert on d -10 and with 100 microg of GnRH or 1,000 IU of hCG. A PGF(2alpha) injection was given at insert removal on d -3. Cows were inseminated 62 h (d 0) after insert removal. On d 26 after first TAI, cows of unknown pregnancy status were treated with saline, GnRH, or hCG to initiate a CO-Synch protocol. Pregnancy was diagnosed 33 d after first TAI to determine pregnancies per AI (P/AI). Nonpregnant cows at 6 locations in yr 1 and 1 location in yr 2 were given PGF(2alpha) and inseminated 56 h later, concurrent with a GnRH injection. Five weeks later, pregnancy diagnosis was conducted to determine pregnancy loss after first TAI and pregnancy outcome of the second TAI. Injection of pre-TAI hCG reduced (P < 0.001) P/AI compared with GnRH, with a greater reduction in cycling cows. Post-TAI treatments had no negative effect on P/AI resulting from the first TAI. Serum progesterone was greater (P = 0.06) 7 d after pre-TAI hCG than after GnRH and greater (P < 0.05) after post-TAI hCG on d 26 compared with saline 7 d after treatment in association with greater frequency of multiple corpora lutea. Compared with saline, injections of post-TAI GnRH and hCG did not increase second insemination P/AI, and inconsistent results were detected among locations. Use of hCG in lieu of GnRH is contraindicated in a CO-Synch + progesterone insert protocol. Compared with a breeding season having only 1 TAI and longer exposure to cleanup bulls, total breeding season pregnancy rate was reduced by one-third, subsequent calving distribution was altered, and 50% more AI-sired calves were obtained by applying 2 TAI during the breeding season.
Thirty-eight Angus-based, crossbred, nulliparous beef heifers (BW = 280 ± 26.3 kg) sired by 2 Angus sires were used to determine if dam BW affected heifer performance, DMI, residual feed intake (RFI), and endocrine markers. Heifers were housed in individual pens (2.2 by 9.1 m) equipped with 2.2 m of bunk space and fed a diet (90.4% DM, 13.7% CP, 67.2% NDF, and 56.2% TDN) consisting of 87.2% bermudagrass hay and 12.8% liquid protein supplement for a 14-d adaption period and a 70-d feeding period. Individual daily feed intake was used to calculate RFI for each heifer, and heifer was the experimental unit. Two-day beginning and end BW were recorded and hip height was used to calculate frame score (FS). Heifer dams were assigned to a light (LIT; 544 ± 21.3 kg) or heavy (HEV; 621 ± 34.8 kg) BW group on the basis of mean BW at the beginning of their lactation period the previous year to determine differences in heifer offspring DMI and RFI. Based on heifer RFI ranking, heifers were classified as positive (POS; 0.34) or negative (NEG; –0.31) RFI and low (LOW; –0.45), medium (MED; 0.00), or high (HI; 0.49) RFI for analysis of BW, FS, BW gain, and DMI. There were no dam BW group × sire interactions (P > 0.10) for all independent variables. Beginning and end BW was greater (P < 0.05) for heifers out of HEV compared with LIT BW dams. Body weight gain, ADG, FS, DMI, and RFI were not significant (P > 0.10) for heifers out of HEV compared with LIT BW dams; however, a sire effect existed (P < 0.01) for BW gain, ADG, FS, and DMI. Among RFI classifications, beginning and end BW, BW gain, ADG, and FS were not different (P > 0.10) whereas DMI was greater (P = 0.03) among heifers in the POS compared with the NEG RFI group and greater (P = 0.01) among heifers in the MED and HI compared with LOW RFI group, respectively. Plasma insulin levels were greater (P = 0.03) in the NEG compared with the POS RFI heifers, and thyroxine (T4) levels were greater (P = 0.02) in the POS compared with the NEG RFI heifers. A positive relationship existed (P ≤ 0.05) between dam BW and heifer DMI (r = 0.42), beginning and end BW (r = 0.45 and 54), and FS (r = 0.58) and between RFI and d 70 triiodothyronine (r = 0.34), d 70 T4 (r = 0.35), and d 0 and 70 combined T4 (r = 0.32), respectively. Heifers out of dams from the HEV BW group were heavier and a positive correlation existed between dam BW and heifer BW, gain, DMI, and FS, which can impact selection goals for replacement heifers.
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the difference between gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) given at the beginning of a timed AI protocol and their effects on fertility. In Experiment 1, beef cows (n = 672) at six different locations were assigned randomly to treatments based on age, body condition, and days postpartum. On day −10, cattle were treated with GnRH or hCG and a progesterone-releasing controlled internal drug release (CIDR) insert was placed in the vagina. An injection of PGF2αwas given and CIDR inserts were removed on day −3. Cows were inseminated at one fixed timed at 62 hr (day 0) after CIDR insert removal. Pregnancy was diagnosed at 33 days (range of 32 to 35) after insemination to determine pregnancy rates. For cows that were pregnant after the first insemination, a second pregnancy diagnosis was conducted 35 days (range of 33 to 37) after the first diagnosis to determine pregnancy survival. Pregnancy rates were reduced by the hCG injection compared with the GnRH injection (39.1 vs. 53.5%). In Experiment 2, cattle were assigned randomly to three treatments, balanced evenly across the two treatments (GnRH vs. hCG) applied in Experiment 1. Cows were injected with GnRH, hCG, or saline seven days before the first pregnancy diagnosis of cows inseminated in Experiment 1. At the time of pregnancy diagnosis, cattle found not pregnant (n = 328) were given PGF2αand inseminated 56 hours later. A second pregnancy diagnosis was conducted 35 days (range of 33 to 37) after the second insemination to determine pregnancy rate at the second AI. Injections of GnRH, hCG, or saline had no effect on pregnancy rates of cows already pregnant to the first insemination. Pregnancy rates after second insemination in cows given an injection of hCG or GnRH, however, tended to be reduced. Percentage of cows pregnant after two timed inseminations exceeded 60% without any need to detect estrus. SummaryTwo experiments were conducted to evaluate the difference between gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) given at the beginning of a timed AI protocol and their effects on fertility. In Experiment 1, beef cows (n = 672) at six different locations were assigned randomly to treatments based on age, body condition, and days postpartum. On day −10, cattle were treated with GnRH or hCG and a progesterone-releasing controlled internal drug release (CIDR) insert was placed in the vagina. An injection of PGF 2α was given and CIDR inserts were removed on day −3. Cows were inseminated at one fixed timed at 62 hr (day 0) after CIDR insert removal. Pregnancy was diagnosed at 33 days (range of 32 to 35) after insemination to determine pregnancy rates. For cows that were pregnant after the first insemination, a second pregnancy diagnosis was conducted 35 days (range of 33 to 37) after the first diagnosis to determine pregnancy survival. Pregnancy rates were reduced by the hCG injection compared with the GnRH injection (39.1 vs. 53.5%). In Experiment ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.