Estrus Synchronization Protocols for HeifersEstrus Synchronization Protocols for Heifers

Division of Animal SciencesUniversity of Missouri

D.J. Patterson, D.C. Busch, N.R. Leitman, D.J. Wilson, D.A. Mallory, and M.F. Smith

Effective Estrus Synchronization Programs for Beef Cattle

Facilitate AI & ETReduce time required to detect estrusCycling females conceive earlier in the breeding periodInduce cyclicity in peripubertal heifers and anestrous postpartum cows

Objective: Development of highly effective & economical estrus synchronization programs

Peripubertal heifersPostpartum cows

Anestrus and cyclingExcellent pregnancy ratesReduced AI period and/or fixed-time AI

Products Currently AvailableCurrently Available

ProstglandinLutalyse, Estrumate, ProstaMate, In Synch, EstroPlan

GnRHCystorelin, Factrel, Fertagyl, OvaCyst

ProgestinsMGACIDR

MGAMGA--Based Protocols for Heifers . . .Based Protocols for Heifers . . .

ProgesteronePregn-4-ene-3, 20-dioneProgesteroneProgesteronePregn-4-ene-3, 20-dione

OOCC

OO

CH3 CH3

CH3 CH3

CH3 CH3

MGA(melengestrol acetate)

6-methyl-17-alpha-acetoxy-16-methylene-pregn-4, 6-diene-3, 20-dione

MGAMGA(melengestrol acetate)

6-methyl-17-alpha-acetoxy-16-methylene-pregn-4, 6-diene-3, 20-dione

CC

OO

CH3 CH3

OOCH3 CH3 CH3

CH3

CH3 CH3

CH3 CH3

OO

OOCC

CH2 CH2

What We Know About MGA . . . What We Know About MGA . . .

Successfully induces puberty in beef heifers (Imwalle et al., 1998)

Prevents expression of behavioral estrus (Zimbelman and Smith, 1966; Imwalle et al., 2002)

Blocks the preovulatory surge of LH (Imwalle et al., 2002)

Blocks ovulation (Zimbelman and Smith, 1966; Imwalle et al., 2002)

MGA (14 days)

11 14 16 20 14 16 20 31 33 36 31 33 36

PGPG

Synchronizedestrus

Treatment days

Estrus

Brown et al., 1988

MGA (14 days)Natural service

Treatment days

1 14 16 20 24

Estrus

MGA prior to Natural Service or MGA-PG prior to AI

Breeding program

No. heifers

Estrous response

Synchronized conception

rate

Synchronized pregnancy

rate

Natural service 1749 --- --- 1151/1749

66%

AI 4245 3354/4245 79%

2414/3354 72%

2414/4245 57%

MGA-PG(AI)

MGA(Natural service)

% ofherd inestrus

MGA-PG

1414--17 d versus 1417 d versus 14--19 d?19 d?

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120

MGA-PG (d 17)MGA-PG (d 19)

Lamb et al., 2000Hour after PG

No.

of h

eife

rs in

sem

inat

ed

MGA-PG14-17 d vs. 14-19 d

MGA-PG 14-19 d

Increased estrous responseIncreased estrous responseEqual fertilityEqual fertilityImproved synchronyImproved synchrony

(Deutscher et al., 2000; Lamb et al., 2000)

Treatment days

MGA (14 days)

1 14 26 33

PG

MGA (14 days)

1 14 26 33

PGGnRH

Wood et al., 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Day of treatment

Folli

cle

diam

eter

(mm

)

ESTRUS

PG

Wood et al., 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Day of treatment

Folli

cle

diam

eter

(mm

)

ESTRUS

PGGnRH

Wood et al., 2001

When to Add GnRH When to Add GnRH to an MGAto an MGA--PG Protocol for HeifersPG Protocol for HeifersConsideration of . . . .

AgeWeight Reproductive tract score (RTS)

Pubertal status

Wood et al., 2000; Kojima et al., 2001

Considerations Regarding Long-term MGA Feeding

Treatment days

1 87 104 115

MGA (87 days)PGPG

1 14 31 42

MGA (14 days)

PG PG

Experimental DesignExperimental DesignExperimental Design

Patterson et al., 1992

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100E

stru

s Res

pons

e (%

)

Short-term MGA Long-term MGA

1st injection 2nd injection Total

24/31 77 %

16/30 53 %

4/7 57 %

10/14 71 %

28/31 90 %

26/30 87 %

Estrous ResponseEstrous ResponseEstrous Response

Treatment Normal Abnormal

Short-term MGA31/31 100 %

Long-term MGA

Ovarian MorphologyOvarian MorphologyOvarian Morphology

19/30 63 %

0/31 0 %*

11/30 37 %*

Abnormal = Luteinized follicular cyst * P < 0.01

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100C

once

ptio

n R

ate

(%)

1st injection 2nd injection Total

18/24 75 %

12/16 75 %

3/4 75 %

6/10 60 %

21/28 75 %

18/26 69 %

Conception RateConception RateConception Rate

Short-term MGA Long-term MGA

Pregnancy Rate

0

10

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90

100Pr

egna

ncy

Rat

e (%

)

Short-term MGA Long-term MGA

28/31 90 %

27/30 90 %

CIDRCIDR--Based Protocols for HeifersBased Protocols for Heifers

Efficacy of the CIDR Insert and PG for Synchronizing Estrus in Beef Heifers

Lucy et al., 2001

Experimental treatments (Lucy et al., 2001)

Untreated controlSingle injection of PGCIDR + PG

CIDR inserted for 7 daysPG administered on day 6

Estrous Response Lucy et al., 2001

Control 33/251 (13%)

PG67/252 (27%)

CIDR + PG143/221 (65%)

010

2030

4050

6070

Estrousresponse

(%)

Control

PG

CIDR +PG

AI Pregnancy Rates Lucy et al., 2001

Control 19/251 (8%)

PG35/252 (14%)

CIDR + PG86/221 (39%)

05

10152025303540

AIpregnancyrates (%)

Control

PG

CIDR +PG

Lucy et al., 2001Lucy et al., 2001

CIDR successfully induced cylicity in prepubertal heifers

CIDR + PG improved estrous response over control and PG treated contemporaries

CIDR + PG improved pregnancy rates during the synchronized period over control and PG treated contemporaries

0 6 7 14

CIDR-PG Protocol

Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AICIDR

PG

CIDR Insertion

CIDR Removal

0 7 14Treatment days

CIDR Insertion

CIDR

CIDR Removal & PG

Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AI

DeJarnette et al., unpublished data

1212 2424 3636 4848 6060 7272 8484 9696 108108 120120Hours after CIDR removal

% o

f hei

fers

in e

stru

s CIDRCIDR--PG day 6 PG day 6

CIDRCIDR--PG day 7 PG day 7

00

1010

2020

3030

4040

PG injection on day 6 or 7 altered the timing of estrus after CIDR removal

NoNoresponseresponse

CIDR-PG Protocol Estrous Response

DeJarnette et al., unpublished data

The MultiThe Multi--State CIDR TrialState CIDR Trial

Lamb et al., 2006

0 7 ……………………..84 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …....... 60 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …............................84h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …..........60 h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI

Lamb et al., 2006

FTAI FTAI

0 7 ……………………..84 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …....... 60 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …............................84h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …..........60 h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI

Lamb et al., 2006

Estrus 233/383 61%

FTAI 50/133 37%

AI 282/516 55%

Estrus 236/372 63%

FTAI 51/131 39%

AI 289/503 57%

0 7 ……………………..84 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …....... 60 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …............................84h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …..........60 h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI

Lamb et al., 2006

FTAI 259/525 49% FTAI 282/531 53%

0 7 ……………………..84 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …....... 60 h

CIDR (7 d)

PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …............................84h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

0 7 …..........60 h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI

Lamb et al., 2006

Estrus 233/383 61%

FTAI 50/133 37%

AI 282/516 55%

FTAI 259/525 49%

Estrus 236/372 63%

FTAI 51/131 39%

AI 289/503 57%

FTAI 282/531 53%

MultiMulti--state CIDR Trialstate CIDR Trial

GnRH at CIDR insertion did not improve pregnancy rates after FTAI

GnRH at CIDR insertion did not alter the percentage of heifers detected in estrus or the distribution of estrus after PG

A combination of detecting estrus and AI before clean-up AI enhanced pregnancy rates over FTAI

Lamb et al., 2006

How do MGAHow do MGA-- and CIDRand CIDR--based based protocols compare in heifers?protocols compare in heifers?

Observations with MGAObservations with MGA--based programs based programs in yearling beef heifers . . .in yearling beef heifers . . .

• Increasing number of reports that pregnancy rates resulting from MGA-based estrus synchronization protocols are declining in yearling age heifers . . . . . . .

– Higher rates of estrous cyclicity– Heavier weight and conditioned heifers

1 14 26 33

MGA (14 days)

1 14 23 30Treatment day

.. .. 12 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..

.. .. 9 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..

GnRH

GnRH

PG

PG

Experimental ProtocolsExperimental Protocols

Kojima et al., 2004

CIDR (14 days)

MGA Select

14-d CIDR

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Days after PG

% o

f Hei

fers

Inse

min

ated

Summary for Timing of AISummary for Timing of AI

No treatment x location effect (P > 0.10); therefore, datawere pooled

Distribution of AI dates were different between MGA- andCIDR-treated heifers (P < 0.02)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80CIDR (n = 177)

MGA (n = 175)

0% 1%

10% 15%

69%

53%

5%10% 16%

21%PG

Kojima et al., 2004

112/177 (63 %)a

83/175 (47 %)b

195/352 (55 %)

AI Pregnancy

a, b P = 0.01+ 16 %

CIDR

MGA

Total

154/177 (87 %)

147/175 (84 %)

301/352 (86 %)

Estrous Response

Estrous Response, AI Pregnancy, and Final Estrous Response, AI Pregnancy, and Final Pregnancy RatesPregnancy Rates

+ 3 %Diff.

164/177 (93 %)

159/175 (91 %)

323/352 (92 %)

Final Pregnancy

+ 2 %Kojima et al., 2004

1414--day CIDR vs MGA Selectday CIDR vs MGA Select

No difference in estrous response during the synchronized period

Improved synchrony of estrus

Improved conception & pregnancy rates during the synchronized period

No difference in final pregnancy rate at the end of the breeding period

Kojima et al., 2004

CIDRCIDR--PG versus MGAPG versus MGA--PGPG

Tauck et al., 2007

Treatment days

MGA (14 days)

0 14

19 days

33

PG

0 14 31

PGCIDR (14 days) 17 days

Tauck et al., 2007

CIDRCIDR--PG versus MGAPG versus MGA--PGPG

Number of heifersInseminated 12 hr after estrus Preg rate (heat detection)Preg rate (FTAI @72 after PGOverall AI preg rate

CIDR MGA

77 79

91% 67%67% 71%25% 54%

62% 66%

Tauck et al., 2007

How do longHow do long--term and shortterm and short--term term CIDRCIDR--based protocols compare in based protocols compare in

heifers?heifers?

Response to GnRH in estrous cycling beef heifers Response to GnRH in estrous cycling beef heifers based on day of the estrous cycle GnRH was based on day of the estrous cycle GnRH was

administeredadministered

Day of treatment

1st GnRH (no. & % responding)

Day 2 0/14 0%

Day 5 12/13 92%

Day 10 4/13 31%

Day 15 8/13 62%

Day 18 2/10 20%

Atkins et al., 2005

Response to GnRH in beef heifers synchronized with Response to GnRH in beef heifers synchronized with the 14the 14--day CIDR based on day of the estrous cycle day CIDR based on day of the estrous cycle

GnRH was administeredGnRH was administered

Day of the cycle GnRH was administered

No. & % responding

Day 3 1/2 50%Day 4 0/1 0%Day 5 5/5 100%Day 6 7/7 100%Day 7 23/27 85%Day 8 24/27 89%

Unknown 8/10 80%

Schafer et al., 2006

Until recently, there have been no comprehensive studies in estrous cycling

and pre/peripubertal beef heifers comparing the long-term CIDR protocol

(CIDR Select) and short-term CIDR- based protocols.

COCO--Synch + CIDR w/ TAI at 54h vsSynch + CIDR w/ TAI at 54h vs CIDR Select w/ TAI at 72hCIDR Select w/ TAI at 72h

0 7 …... 54h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

0 14 23 30.........72h

.. .. 9 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..

GnRH PGCIDR (14 days)

CIDR SelectCIDR Select

GnRH

AI

Treatment day

COCO--Synch + CIDRSynch + CIDR

Busch et al., 2007

54/87 (62%)x

40/86 (47%)y

94/173 (54%)

Estrous cycling

+ 15 %

CIDR Select

CO-Synch + CIDR

Total

AI pregnancyAI pregnancy

Diff.

67/108 (62%)x

51/109 (47%)y

118/217 (54%)

Combined

+ 15 %x,y P= 0.02

13/21 (62%)

11/23 (48%)

24/44 (55%)

Pre/peri- pubertal

+ 14 %x,y P= 0.03

Fixed-time AI pregnancy rate

Busch et al., 2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-89-1011

-1213-1

415-1617-1

819-2021-2

223-24 NR

Interval after FTAI, d

Estru

s, %

CIDR Select (n=41)CO-Synch+CIDR (n=58)

Distribution of repeat estrus following TAI at all locations

Busch et al., 2007

Synchrony of estrus

CIDR Select

CO-Synch + CIDR

28/108 (26%)

42/109 (39%)

Observed in estrus

Return to estrus after TAIReturn to estrus after TAI

+ 13 %Diff.P= 0.05

20.2 ± 0.7 d

Mean interval to

estrus

P = 0.26

19.2 ± 0.6 d

(mean ± SE) (mean ± SD)

20.2 ± 3.0 d

19.2 ± 4.3 d

F-test P < 0.05

Busch et al., 2007

ConclusionConclusion

Synchronizing replacement beef heifers with the CIDR Select protocol resulted in:Significantly higher TAI pregnancy rates (P = 0.02)Reduced variance associated with the interval from TAI to subsequent return to estrus (P < 0.05)

Busch et al., 2007

CIDR Select with heat detection resultsCIDR Select with heat detection resultsHerd No. Pregnant Total No. Percentage

1 (F02) 50 79 63%

2 (S03) 27 42 64%

3 (S03) 35 56 63%

4 (S04) 26 48 54%

5 (S04) 49 79 62%

6 (S04) 38 50 76%

7 (F04) 31 46 67%

8 (F04) 24 44 55%

9 (F04) 29 41 71%

10 (S05) 42 81 52%

11 (S05) 20 39 51%

12 (S05) 9 16 56%

13 (S05) 10 16 63%

14 (S05) 8 10 80%

15 (S05) 41 81 51%

16 (F05) 25 33 76%

17 (F05) 12 18 67%

18 (F05) 23 51 45%

Totals 499 830 60%

CIDR Select with Heat Detection830 Total Females at 18 Locations

Average % Synchronized Pregnancy = 60%

CIDR Select with TAI at 72 hrs resultsCIDR Select with TAI at 72 hrs resultsHerd No. Pregnant Total No. Percentage

1 (F04) 71 117 61%

2 (S05) 44 67 66%

3 (S05) 7 9 78%

4 (S05) 42 82 51%

5 (F05) 58 85 68%

6 (F05) 25 48 52%

7 (F05) 8 12 67%

8 (F05) 52 77 68%

8 (F05) 31 58 53%

8 (F05)* 7 27 26%

9 (F05) 50 81 62%

10 (S06) 23 39 59%

11 (S06) 44 69 64%

12 (S06) 32 50 64%

13 (S06) 24 32 75%

Totals 518 853 61%

CIDR Select with Timed AI @ 72 hrs.853 Total Females at 13 Locations

Average % Synchronized Pregnancy = 61%

Results from Leitman et al. (2008) were analyzed to compare the CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR protocols among mixed groups of estrous cycling and prepubertal beef heifers.

Treatments

CIDRGnRH

0 14 23 30

… 9 days … … 7 days …

CIDR Select

CIDR

GnRH PG

0 7

Select Synch + CIDR

PG

Leitman et al., 2008

Objectives

Characterize Follicular dynamics the day preceding and the day of GnRHResponse to GnRHEstrus distribution after CIDR removal and PGTime of ovulation following each synchronization protocol

Leitman et al., 2008

Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers

CIDR Select

Select Synch + CIDR

Response to GnRH

21/26

81%*9/23

39%*

Estrous response

23/26

88%19/23

83%*P<0.01

Leitman et al., 2008

Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers

Variance for interval to estrus differed between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR

CIDR Select

Select Synch + CIDR

Interval from PG to estrus

52 ± 1.4h42–70h (28h)

47 ± 3.9h29–105h (76h)

Variance from PG to estrus

45.6* 285.6*

*P<0.001Leitman et al., 2008

Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers

Variance for interval to ovulation differed between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR

CIDR Select

Select Synch + CIDR

Interval from PG to ovulation

82 ± 1.6h68–100h (32h)

75 ± 4.3h55–131h (76h)

Variance from PG to ovulation

51.3* 331.2*

*P<0.001Leitman et al., 2008

Comparison of variances within treatment

Cycling Prepubertal P-valueCIDR Select

Estrus 38.9 61.2 P>0.10

Ovulation 35.3 79.3 P>0.10

Select Synch + CIDR

Estrus 390.8 102.2 P<0.06

Ovulation 435.4* 99.8* *P<0.05

Leitman et al., 2008

Summary

The CIDR Select protocol improved synchrony of estrus and ovulation compared with Select Synch + CIDR.

There was more variance associated with the interval from PG to estrus (P<0.06) and ovulation (P<0.05) between prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers synchronized with the Select Synch + CIDR protocol compared to CIDR Select.

Leitman et al., 2008

Summary

Differences in variances for interval to estrus and ovulation between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR treated groups help to explain differences in pregnancy rates resulting from fixed-time AI among CIDR Select and CO-Synch treated heifers.

Leitman et al., 2008

Management Considerations Related to Estrus Synchronization

and Fixed-Time AI

Choosing a progestinChoosing a progestin--based protocolbased protocol

The feeding of MGA is specifically approved for estrus synchronization in heifers only.

Use of MGA as part of any estrus synchronization protocol in beef cows constitutes an extralabel use of medicated feed that is prohibited by the Animal Medicinal Drug Use and Clarification Act.

Producers that have used MGA to synchronize cows in the past should transition to CIDR to comply with FDA regulations concerning extralabel use of medicated feeds.

CurrentlyCurrently…………..

Success rates using fixed-time AI in postpartum beef cows warrant an organized effort to increase application and successful use.

0 7 …... 66 h

CIDR (7 d)

GnRH PG

GnRH

AI

COCO--SynchSynch + CIDR+ CIDR

CO-Synch + CIDR with fixed-time AI @ 66 hrs after PG and CIDR removal

No. Herds

No. Cows

AI Preg. Rate (%)

Range

AI Preg. Rate (%)

Mean

Fixed- time AI results

63 6437 38-86%*4009/6437

62%

*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.

*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.

Do we know what to expect at calving Do we know what to expect at calving from cows that conceive on the same from cows that conceive on the same

day to the same sire?day to the same sire?

02468

101214161820

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 402468

101214161820

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 802468

101214161820

-11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7

02468

101214161820

-12 -8 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 1502468

101214161820

-13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 902468

101214161820

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Location 1; Sire A (Angus) BW EPD -0.3; CED = +11 Range 271-290 Mean = 281

Location 1; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 275-292 Mean = 281

Location 1; Sire C (Angus) BW EPD -1.1; CED = +11 Range 274-287 Mean = 281

Location 2; Sire D (Red Angus) BW EPD +2.3; CED = -2 Range 273-300 Mean = 283

Location 3; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 272-294 Mean = 283

Location 4; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 275-294 Mean = 284

Consider the impact of estrus synchronization on calving distribution………

Opportunities for increasing profits lie in managing females from the later calving intervals forward toward the first and second calving intervals.

High production herds see 61% of the calves born by day 21, 85% by day 42 and 94% by day 63.

Hughes, 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

%

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77Day of calving season

4 years; 11 herds; 1511 calves

Calving distribution for entire calving season

Thompson (04-07), FSRC (05, 07); Greenley (05-07); MFA (06-07)Cumulative Calf % by:

day 15 = 65%

day 21 = 70%

day 30 = 82%

day 42 = 93%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 16 31 46Day of calving season

Perc

enta

ge

Natural Service (3 years; n = 526) Estrus Detection & AI (5 years; n = 1040)Fixed-time AI (4 years; n = 766)

Cumulative calf crops (MU Thompson Farm) for the first 46 days over 12 calving seasons

• Improvements in methods to synchronize estrus create the opportunity to significantly expand the use of AI in the U.S. cowherd . . . . . . .

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Faculty, Students, & StaffFaculty, Students, & Staff

Faculty Regional Extension Livestock SpecialistsMike Smith Roger Eakins Matthew Lucy Al KennettMark Ellersieck Chris Zumbrunnen

Students MU Farms & CentersJon Bader David McAtee Nicole Leitman Jon SchrefflerDaniel Mallory Randall SmootDaniel Schafer Dave DavisJacob Stegner Dennis JacobsGeorge PerryDallas WilsonStacey Wood (Follis)

Research Specialists & Postdoctoral FellowsDan BuschNaoto (Freddie) Kojima

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Financial SupportFinancial Support

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Product supportPfizerMerialIVX

Semen SupportABS Global

Acclerated GeneticsGenex

Select Sires, Inc.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Cooperators

4-M Ranch

John Ranch

Jim Wallis Farms

Circle A Angus Ranch

Jim Clement, DVM

MFA, Inc.

SEMO University

MU Farms & Centers

Thompson Farm

Greenley Center

FSRC