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

Site of PGF2α injection does not alter effectiveness of the Select Synch + controlled internal drug release and timed artificial insemination protocol

Beef Quality Assurance programs have contributed to significant improvements in the wholesomeness of beef available for consumption. Injection site blemishes in the round have declined since the promotion of administering intramuscular injections in the neck. Unfortunately, many producers continue to administer estrus synchronization (ES) drugs in the rump. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of injection site of PGF_2α, in ES protocols, on steroid hormone concentrations and pregnancy rates. A Select Synch + 7-day controlled internal drug release ES protocol was conducted with the site of PGF_2α injection alternated between neck and rump in beef cattle (n = 312) at the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute and North Carolina State University. Blood samples (n = 75) were collected at controlled internal drug release insertion and at the time of artificial insemination (AI) to determine if progesterone (P4) and estrogen (E2) concentrations varied due to PGF_2α injection site. All cattle were confirmed pregnant by ultrasonography at approximately 30 and 90 days after insemination in North Carolina and approximately 70 days after insemination in Ohio. Data were analyzed as randomized complete block designs in PROC GLIMMIX with animal as the experimental unit. Differences were declared significant at P < 0.05. Site of PGF_2α injection, in either the neck or rump, did not affect (P > 0.05) overall conception rates in response to AI (58.4% and 55.6%, respectively). Altering PGF_2α injection site did not impact P4, E2 concentrations, or the P4:E2 ratio at AI (P > 0.05). However, cattle inseminated after displaying estrus had greater (P < 0.05) pregnancy rates than timed AI (67.8 vs. 47.5%, respectively). First service conception rates and pregnancy rates were consistent with previous reports. Overall, altering the location of the PGF_2α injection during ES did not change circulating hormone concentrations at AI or pregnancy rates; therefore, cattle producers should follow Beef Quality Assurance guidelines when administering ES protocols.

Comparison of pregnancy rates in beef cattle after a fixed-time AI with once- or twice-used controlled internal drug release devices

The use of fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) provides producers with numerous benefits including the use of superior genetics, shorter breeding and calving seasons, and a more uniform calf crop. However, the cost of implementing FTAI protocols is one of the several drawbacks hindering their use in the beef industry. Potential injection-site lesions from intramuscular injections of the hormones necessary for estrus synchronization are also a cause of concern for carcass quality. The objectives of this experiment were to (1) determine whether or not a twice-used controlled internal drug release (CIDR) device would be effective in an FTAI protocol without adversely affecting pregnancy rate and (2) whether or not the subcutaneous administration of PGF2α affects pregnancy rate. Nulliparous females (n = 99) between 13 and 27 months of age and multiparous cows (n = 43) between 48 and 74 months of age were synchronized for estrus using the 7-day CO-Synch + CIDR protocol. The females were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments: (1) a once-used CIDR (control) or (2) a twice-used CIDR device (treatment) incorporated into their synchronization protocol. The females were also randomly assigned to have their injection of PGF2α administered either intramuscularly or subcutaneously. Blood was taken in a random subset of nulliparous females (n = 52) just before device removal and assayed for concentration of progesterone. The concentration of progesterone was higher (P = 0.01) in the animals that received once-used CIDR devices than that in those received twice-used CIDR devices (3.4 ± 0.5 and 1.4 ± 0.5 ng/mL, respectively). There was no significant effect of parity (P = 0.82), artificial insemination technician (P = 0.60), PGF2α administration (P = 0.83), or treatment (P = 0.67) on pregnancy rates to artificial insemination which were 75.4 ± 6.0% and 71.7 ± 6.4%, for animals that received once- and twice-used CIDR devices, respectively. This study provides evidence that although concentration of progesterone is decreased in animals treated with a twice-used CIDR device, there is still a sufficient release of progesterone from the device to effectively synchronize estrus without adversely affecting the fertility of a herd.

Lack of complete regression of the Day 5 corpus luteum after one or two doses of PGF2α in nonlactating Holstein cows

The early corpus luteum (CL) (before Day 6) does not regress after a single PGF2α treatment. We hypothesized that increasing PGF2α dose or number of treatments would allow regression of the early CL (Day 5). Nonlactating Holstein cows (N = 22) were synchronized using the Ovsynch protocol. On Day 5 (Day 0 = second GnRH treatment), cows were assigned to: (1) control (N = 5): no further treatment; (2) 1PGF (N = 6): one dose of 25 mg PGF2α; (3) 2PGF (N = 5): two doses of 25 mg PGF2α (50 mg) given 8 hours apart (second PGF2α on Day 5 at the same time as the other PGF2α treatments); (4) DPGF (N = 6): double dose of 25 mg PGF2α (50 mg) given on Day 5. Blood samples were collected to monitor progesterone (P4) profiles in two periods. In the first period (0 to 24 hours), there were effects of treatment (P = 0.01), time (P < 0.01), and an interaction of treatment and time (P = 0.02). Group 1PGF versus control was different only at 12 hours (P = 0.02). Cows treated with DPGF were different than control at 4 hours (P = 0.04), 12 hours (P < 0.01), and 24 hours (P < 0.01). Only cows treated with 2PGF had lower P4 than control during the entire period and low P4 (0.37 ± 0.17 ng/mL) at 24 hours, usually indicative of luteolysis. In the second period (Day 5 to 15 of the cycle), there were effects of treatment (P < 0.01), time (P < 0.01), and interaction of treatment and time (P = 0.002). Group 1PGF was not different than control from Day 5 to 13 and P4 was greater than control on Day 14 (P = 0.01) and 15 (P < 0.01). Circulating P4 in DPGF cows was lower than control from Day 7 (P = 0.05) through 12 (P < 0.01). Likewise, there were differences between control and 2PGF from Day 7 to 13, but not on Day 14 and 15. On Day 15, all PGF2α-treated groups had circulating P4 consistent with an active CL. Ultrasound evaluation confirmed that no CL from any group completely regressed during the experiment and no new ovulations occurred to account for functional CL later in cycle. In summary, a double dose of PGF2α (twice on Day 5 or 8 hours apart) can dramatically decrease P4, consistent with classical definitions of luteolysis; however, these CL recover and become fully functional. Thus, the Day 5 CL of mature Holstein cows do not regress even to two doses of PGF2α.