Estrus Synchronization Protocols forEstrus Synchronization Protocols for

CowsCows

Cliff LambCliff Lamb

University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef CattleApplied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle

NCBA ConventionNCBA Convention

January 28, 2010January 28, 2010

Estrous Synchronization Protocols

Two shot PGF

7-11 Synch Select Synch

Ov-synch

CO-synch

MGA/PGF

MGA Select

CIDR/PGF

CO-synch+CIDR Heat Synch

Hybrid Synch

Hybrid Synch+CIDR

One shot PGF

PresynchResynch

US Beef US Beef Semen Semen Sales and CustomSales and CustomCollected SemenCollected Semen

http://www.naab-css.org/sales/table_list.html

4 x 106 units

http://www.nass.usda.gov

US Beef Cow InventoryUS Beef Cow InventoryPercentage of Semen Sold and CollectedPercentage of Semen Sold and Collected

Compared to Beef Cow InventoryCompared to Beef Cow Inventory

11%

DefinitionsDefinitions

!Synchronization Rate:

% of females detected in estrus compared to total

number synchronized.

!Conception Rate:

% of females pregnant compared to number offemales inseminated.

!Pregnancy Rate:

% of females pregnant compared to total number

synchronized.

2 ! Prostaglandin (PGF2!) System

PGF PGF Heat detect

and AI

-14 0 144

Days from PGF Hours from PGF

Select Synch

GnRH PGF Heat detect

and AI

-7 0 144

Days from PGF Hours from PGF

Ovsynch

GnRH PGF AIGnRH

-7 0 48 60-66

Days from PGF Hours from PGF

CO-Synch

GnRH PGF

-7 0 48

Days from PGF Hours from PGF

GnRH

& AI

Select Synch & TAI

GnRH PGF

-7 0 72-84

Days from PGF Hours from PGF

GnRH

& AIHeat detect

& AI

2!PGF2! vs. Select Synch

GnRH PGF Heat detect and AI

Select Synch

PGF PGF Heat detect and AI

2!PGF2!

(Stevenson et al., 2000)

Item 2!PGF2! Select Synch

No. of Cows 294 289

Synchronization rate, % 142/294 (48) 175/289 (61)

Conception rates, % 86/142 (61) 115/175 (66)

Pregnancy rates, % 86/294 (28) 115/289 (38)

(Stevenson et al., 2000)

2!PGF2! vs. Select Synch Select Synch vs. CO-Synch

GnRH PGF Heat detect and AI

Select Synch

GnRH PGFGnRH & AI

CO-Synch

(Grieger et al., 2001)

Item Select Synch CO-Synch

No. of Cows 237 223

Synchronization rate, % 130/237 (55) -

Conception rates, % 93/130 (72) 106/223 (48)

Pregnancy rates, % 93/237 (39) 106/223 (48)

(Grieger et al., 2001)

Select Synch vs. CO-Synch CO-Synch vs. Ovsynch

GnRH PGFGnRH

& AI

CO-Synch

(Geary et al., 2001)

GnRH PGF AIGnRH

Ovsynch

Days relative to PGF Hours relative to PGF

-7 0 48 72

(Geary et al., 2001)

CO-Synch vs. Ovsynch

PGFTAI &GnRH

PGF

GnRH

GnRHTAI &GnRH

-7 0 48

Days relative to PGF Hours relative to PGF

CO-Synch

CO-Synch+CIDRCIDR

CO-synch vs. CO-synch+CIDR

(Lamb et al., 2001)

First Service Pregnancy Rates

Treatments

(Lamb et al., 2001)

Effect of BCS on Pregnancy Rates

(Lamb et al., 2001)

Body condition score

PGFTAI &GnRH

Detect estrus & AI

PGFTAI &GnRH

PGF

PGFTAI &GnRH

Detect estrus & AI

PGFTAI &GnRH

Detect estrus & AI

GnRH

GnRH

GnRH

GnRH

TAI &GnRH

-18 to -16 -7 0 60 84

B BDays relative to PGF Hours relative to PGF

CIDR-PG & TAI

CO-Synch

CO-Synch+CIDR

Select Synch & TAI

Select Synch+CIDR & TAI

CIDR

CIDR

CIDR

Effect of Location on Pregnancy Rates

Locations

(Larson et al., 2006)

Pregnancy Rates after EstrusDetection Alone vs TAI

TreatmentP < 0.05

a ba,bcb

53

43

54 53

58

(Larson et al., 2006)

PGFGnRHTAI &GnRH

-5 d 0 8±2h 72h

CIDR

(Day et al., 2008)

5-day CO-Synch + CIDR

PGF

PGFGnRHTAI &

GnRH

-7 d 0 60-66h

CIDR

7-day CO-Synch + CIDR

PGFGnRHTAI &

GnRH

-5 d 0 8±2h 72h

CIDR

5-day CO-Synch + CIDR

PGF

PGFGnRHTAI &

GnRH

-7 d 0 60-66h

CIDR

PGFGnRHTAI &

GnRH

-5 d 0 8±2h 72h

CIDR

PGF

7-day CO-Synch+CIDR

5-day CO-Synch+CIDR

Distribution of Estrus for 5-day and7-day CO-Synch + CIDR protocols

(Wilson et al., 2010)

Pregnancy rate to 7-dayCO-Synch + CIDR protocol

n > 7,000 n > 2,600

Pregnancy rate to 5-dayCO-Synch + CIDR protocol

n > 2.100 n > 2,000

Control

n = 285

CIDR Natural mating

GnRH PGF

TAI +

GnRH

TAI

n = 263

Natural mating

Effects of a fixed-time AI system onEffects of a fixed-time AI system on

calving distributioncalving distribution

(Rodgers, 2007)

Calving Distribution of Cows Calvingafter TAI or Bull breeding

44.1%vs.

24.7%

(Rodgers, 2007)

Calving Distribution afterSynchronization of Estrous

(Larson et al., 2006)

Does the use of the CO-Synch + CIDRProtocol delay return to estrus?

438 suckled cows were estrous synchronized usingthe 7-day CO-Synch + CIDR Protocol.

PGFGnRHTAI &

GnRHCIDR

(Mercadante et al., 2010)

n=275

n=85

n=37 n=34

90% Overall pregnancy rate

??

Calving Distribution

(Mercadante et al., 2010)

97.5% return toestrus rate!!

Estrus response of cows following the7-day CO-Synch+CIDR protocol

Average Intervalto estrus = 20.9days

(Mercadante et al., 2010)

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

PeoplePeople

Dr. Carl Dahlen

Dr. Jamie Larson

Mr. Guilherme Marquezini

Dr. Jeff Stevenson

Graduate Students

Technical staff

Support staff

Collaborators

Co-authors

Beef cattle producers

Funding and ProductFunding and Product

SupportSupportABS Global, Inc.

Blandin Foundation

Intervet Animal Health

IVX/Teva Animal Health

Merial Animal Health

MN-AURI

NAAB

Pfizer Animal Health

Select Sires, Inc.

U of FL

U of MN

USDA-CSREES

Thank You!

Contact Information:Cliff Lamb

University of Florida3925 HWY 71

Marianna, FL 32446Tel: 850-394-9124

Email: gclamb@ufl.edu