Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus
Transcript of Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus
1
Synchronization Response: Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus Cattle
Joel V. Yelich, PhD Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville
2012 Beef Improvement Federation
Houston, Texas
G. Allen Bridges, PhD University of Minnesota
North Central Research and Outreach Center Grand Rapids, MN
Bos taurus beef cattle
Maternal and(or) terminal breeds
Positive carcass traits: marbling,tenderness, yield
Excellent production in temperate climates
Bos indicus Based Cattle “Positive Attributes”
Heat tolerant
Increased parasite & disease tolerance
Improved production in subtropical climates
Bos indicus Based Cattle “Negative Attributes”
Older age at puberty
Decreased carcass quality & tenderness
Potential handling stress issues
Management driven
Reproductive challenges with Bos indicus cattle
Differences in concentrations and (or) sensitivities to GnRH, LH, estrogen, and progesterone
Increased incidence of estrous cycles with three and four follicle waves
Difficult to detect estrus, due to shorter estrous duration, decreased estrous intensity, and increased incidence of silent heats
Postpartum period is extended
More susceptible to (-) effects of handling stress
2
Synchronization Systems Producer Perspective
Cost effective
Ease of implementation
Minimal cattle handlings
Yield consistent & acceptable pregnancy rates
Fit into producers operation
Meet their goals and objectives
Physical & labor resources
MANIPULATING THE ESTROUS CYCLE
Synchronization of follicular
growth & inducing ovulation for
timed-AI
GnRH ProstaglndinF2
(PG)
Regulation of CL regression
Progestogens
(MGA)
(CIDR)
Prevent expression of estrus and
induce estrous cycles
Table 1. Commonly used hormones in estrous synchronization and their trade namesa.
Hormone (Abbreviation) Commercial Productsb
Gonadotropin Hormone Releasing Hormone (GnRH)
Cystorelin!, Factrel!, Fertagyl!, OvaCyst!
Progestins
Progesterone CIDR!, Intravaginal progesterone-releasing insert
Synthetic progestin Melengestrol acetate (MGA!), Orally-active feed additive
Prostaglandin F2" (PGF) Lutalyse!, Estrumate!, ProstaMate!, estroPLAN™, In-Synch™
a Table adapted from M.L. Day and D.E. Grum, The Ohio State University
b The commercial products often do not have the same chemical composition as the hormone produced by the animal’s body. In many cases, these compounds have similar effects on the reproductive system as the native hormone. Please read and follow label instructions when using these products.
Estrous Synchroniza0on Terminology
Estrous Response Percentage of females that exhibited estrus during synchronized period
Concep;on Rate Percent of heifers that conceived to AI of those that exhibited estrus
Timed-‐AI Pregnancy Rate
Percentage of females that became pregnant following a ;med-‐AI
AI or Synchronized Pregnancy Rate Percentage of females that became pregnant to AI of total treated
Beef Heifer Synchronization
Estrus (Low fertility)
Synchronized Estrus & AI
1 14 16 20 31 33 38
Treatment days
MGA (14 days) PG
Brown et al., 1988
MGA + PG
3
TRT
#
Estrous Rate (%)
Conception Rate (%)
AI Pregnancy Rate (%)
Brown et al., 1988 157 83.0 69.0 57.0
Patterson, 1990 323 83.0 74.0 61.0
Yearling Bos taurus beef heifers synchronized with MGA + PG
!"#$%&"%
!" #$" %&"
!"#$%'%&"%
'(")*+,"-*,*.,"+/-"01""
%%"#2"-+34"
"()*%
#+%
56("7018"9*(:6(;"701"<=">"=")"+:,*("?@"AB,)"@/CD"+,"701"""56(")*+,"-*,*.,B6/"+/-"018":6(E6"701"+/-"-*,*.,")*+,"+/-"01"F/,BG"-+3"%2"
!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&*%+3,+4"5/%&,3&6%"+$157&!"#$%&'('#&89"4#:&"5-&6%"+$157&;%13%+<&,3&!"#$)*+),'#&8=+1-7%<:&#+%%-157&<65/;+,51>%-&
?10;&@ABCDA&
&!+%"04%50&
&5&
E<0+,.<&+%<*,5<%F&
G&H,5/%*01,5&+"0%F&G&
!14%-CBI&*+%75"5/6&+"0%F&G&
J65/;+,51>%-&*+%75"5/6&+"0%F&G&
9"4#&%0&"$(F&KLLL& & & & &
MN&-"6<& KOP& QR('& NS(P& C& SM(R&
MP&-"6<& KQL& QR(M& NS(P& C& SS(O&
=+1-7%<&%0&"$(F&KLLS& & & & &
J157$%&DAT& 'SO& O'(K"& OR(R& K'(P"& 'O(S"&
J*$10&DAT& 'OM& SL(M#& SM(S& ''(S#& OK(S#&"F&#&8D&&U&L(LS:&
NO
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
Day of the Estrous Cycle
NO NO YES YES YES
Effectiveness of GnRH to induce ovulation for follicle synchronization
Estrus Estrus
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Cow A Cow B
Cow C New Follicle Wave
Day
Follicle
Diamet
er, mm
GnRH PGF2
Estrus
Effect of GnRH on Follicular Waves
4
!"#$%
&'(#)%
*!%!"#$%
+'%
!" #" $!"#%"&"'(")*+"
,-.-/0%,1"/2%3%&'(#)%4"5%6+'%
,*-./0-1/"2.3"
4-./"2-/-5/".12"67"2.3"#"/8"$!".12",67".99"181:*-+;812-*+"#%:'(")8<*+".=/-*">?"@A/)"?1B4"./",67"
4-./"2-/-5/".12"67""
!"#$%
&'(#)%
*!%!"#$%
+'%
!" #" $!"%!"&"%%"'()"
,-(./%&0-1/"23%4%&'(#)%
*(+,-.+/-"0,1"
2+(34(."*56"%!"-4"%%"'",3-+("27"89-'"7/:;",-"*56""
!"#"$"%&'"
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
(" )" !"
*$"#"$"%&'"
+,(-.%&/,0."12%3%&'(#)%
+&,-./,0."1-2"
4!%
3,&45&/"+67"*$"#"$"%"-4.,&".%,"89&'."3:";9.%":0<="-."+67"""+;5"90>,?.950'"54"3:"@!"#"$"%&'A"-&,"&,BC9&,1"45&".%9'"D&5.5?5E""""""""
!
!"#$%&'(&)*+,"-./*0&*1&23&,-%40"056&-"7%/&#%78%%0&79%&:;<"6&"0=&>;<"6&",,-*"59%/&7*&%/7-*?/&/6059-*0.@"7.*0&.0&!"#$%&'('#$#%%1&9%.1%-/(&
& & 23&,-%40"056&-"7%& $& A%1%-%05%& :;<"6& >;<"6& )$;&B"$?%&& & & & $
)C;D6059&E&)3<A$
F.$/*0&%7&"$(G&HII:&
'J(IK&L0&M&HI'N&
>J(:K&L0&M&HION& P&I(I>&
& & & & &D%$%57&D6059&E&)3<A&"0=&!23$
D,"-Q/&%7&"$(G&HIOI&
':(RK&L0&M&HJSN&
>:(OK&L0&M&RT:N& P&I(I>&
Percentage Brahman (n)
Variable AN 1/4 3/8 1/2 3/4 BR
Estrous Response, %
55.6a (27)
27.6b,c (29)
38.9a.c (18)
55.6a,d (45)
40.0a,
b (20) 66.7d (24)
Conception Rate, %
53.3 (15)
62.5 (8)
71.5 (7)
56.0 (25)
50.0 (8)
75.0 (16)
Timed-AI Pregnancy Rate, %
58.3 (12)
37.9 (29)
33.3 (18)
46.7 (45)
35.0 (20)
58.3 (24)
Synchronized Pregnancy Rate, %
55.6 (27)
37.9 (29)
33.3 (18)
46.7 (45)
35.0 (20)
58.3 (24)
Select Synch + CIDR and TAI in 2 yr old Angus, Brahman, and respective crosses
a,b,c,d (P < 0.05); J.V. Yelich, unpublished data
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!"# $# %#
+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8+9//:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
/#0#1#2'3#
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!4# $# %#
;,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8;9//:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
<!%
/#0#1#2'3#
<!%
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!"# $# %#
=>9?@?09%+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8=>9:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
/#0#1#2'3#
<!%
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
<!%
!4#
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
5
Working Hypothesis
Reducing progesterone concentra5ons during development of the follicular wave would:
Progesterone causes an LH (Roberson et al., 1989; Dias et al., 2009)
Increase dominant follicle growth and diameter (Carvalho et al., 2008) Increase pre-‐ovulatory estradiol produc5on (Sirois and Fortune, 1990)
Enhance oocyte viability (Revah and Butler, 1996)
Enhance subsequent luteal func5on (Butler et al., 1996)
Increase estrous response and concep5on rates to AI and 5med-‐AI
Courtesy Brandy Sparks, Purdue
!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&*%+3,+4"5/%&,3&6%"+$157&#%%3&8%13%+9&,3&!"#$%&'('#&#+%%-157&&
!)!& 5!:90+,.9&
)%9*,59%;&<&=,5/%*01,5&)"0%;&<&
!14%->?@&=,5/%*01,5&)"0%;&<&
?@&A+%75"5/6&)"0%;&<&
'-BB& CDE& 'D(F"& DG(H/& 'H(I& 'E(F"&
E-BB& GIJ& DE(F#& 'H(H-& KF(J& KE(C#&
L,-& CEK& DI(C#& D'(D/& KG(F& 'J(K"&
";#&&)$M&H(H'&/;-&&)$M&H(HF&
Sparks et al., 2010
!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&*%+3,+4"5/%&,3&6%"+$157&#%%3&8%13%+9&,3&!"#$%&'%()#&#+%%-157&
!+%"04%509& :&
;90+,.9&)%9*,59%<&
=&>,5/%*01,5&)"0%<&=&
!14%-?@A&*+%75"5/6&+"0%<&=&
@A&*+%75"5/6&+"0%<&=&
B-CC& DDE& FD(F"& EE(E"& DB(G& DH(B"&
G-CC& DDE& EI(B#& EJ(B"& DI(H& FE(K"&
L,-& DDG& IF(G#& 'F(K#& DH(I& EG('#&"!"#"MN&O&K(KBP(&
Bischoff et al., 2011
!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&0+"/0&3/,+%&4)!56&%77%/03&,8&+%*+,-./012%&*%+7,+9"8/%&,7&:%"+$18;&#%%7&<%17%+3&,7&!"#$%&'%()#&#+%%-18;&&
)!5& =&
>30+,.3&)%3*,83%?&
@&&A,8/%*01,8&)"0%?&@&
!19%-BCD&*+%;8"8/:&+"0%?&@&
5:8/<+,81E%-&*+%;8"8/:&+"0%?&
@&
!<1+0:B-":&*+%;8"8/:&+"0%?&@&
F& GF& FH('!& FI(H& J(F& J(K!& HF(I!&
L& 'I& FM(K&!& GM(M& FL(F& FN(L!& II(N!&
H& 'N& HJ(G!& GM(M& LH(J& HI(L!& GJ(L!&
I& JK& IJ(M!& GI(L& FK(M& HG('!& NK(I!&
G& II& IG(G!& IM(M& LG(M& HF(K!& 'L('!&
OB2"$.%& O&P&M(MG& O&Q&M(MG& O&Q&M(MG& O&P&M(MG& O&P&M(MG&
&Bischoff et al., 2011
Bos taurus beef heifer Synchronization
MGA + PG and TAI
5 Day Co-Synch + CIDR
7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI
Response dependent on pubertal status
Bos indicus beef heifer synchronization
Response dependent on pubertal status MGA + PG (Split) and TAI 7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI (Variable Results)
5 Day Co-Synch + CIDR (NO!!!! NO!!!!!)
Modified 7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI
Potential system but increased cattle handling
6
Beef Cow Synchronization
Suckling calf
Decreased percentage of estrous cycling cows at breeding
Synchronization response
• Dependent on nutritional status pre-calving
Anestrus in US beef cattle at start of synchronization
Range 17-67% Range
6-81%
851 cows 6 locations 56 dpp
Range 8-69%
2212 cows 12 locations 69 dpp
724 heifers 5 locations 14.7 months
Lucy et al., 2001; Larson et al., 2006
Perc
enta
ge c
yclin
g
1 3
5 7
Effectiveness of the CIDR to induce estrus in lactating anestrous (non-cycling) cows
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FL IL NEB MU MT OK ALL
Perc
ent
exhibi
ting
est
rus
Lucy et al., 2001
Fig 3. Synchronization responses with 7 day CIDR in Bos taurus and Bos indicus type cows
5849
54
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
Preg
nant
(%)
Select Synch + CIDR + TAI Bos taurus1
n=498 n=332 n=539
(Larsen et al., 20061; Saldarriaga et al., 20043; Yelich, 20003, Esterman, 20112)
n=891
Select Synch + CIDR + TAI Bos indicus2
Co-Synch + CIDR
Bos taurus1
Co-Synch + CIDR
Bos indicus3
!
!"#$%&'(&)*+,"-./*0&*1&23&,-%40"056&-"7%/&#%78%%0&79%&:;<"6&"0=&>;<"6&",,-*"59%/&7*&%/7-*?/&/6059-*0.@"7.*0&.0&!"#$%&'('#$#%%1&5*8/(&
& & 23&,-%40"056&-"7%& $& A%1%-%05%& :;<"6& >;<"6& )$;&B"$?%&& & & & $
)C;D6059&E&)3<A$ F-.=4%/&%7&"$(G&HIIJG&K%"-&L&
MM(:N&O0&P&LLLQ&
JI(IN&O0&P&LI>Q& R&I(I>&
& F-.=4%/&%7&"$(G&HIIJG&K%"-&H&>M(HN&
O0&P&HILQ&M>(SN&
O0&P<TQ& R&I(I>&
7
Select Synch + CIDR and TAI in suckled Bos indicus type cows
Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Combined
Estrous response,% 47.6 (63) 45.2 (62) 52.9 (157) 48.5 (282)
Conception rate, % 68.8 (30) 60.7 (28) 77.1 (83) 68.8 (141)
Timed AI pregnancy rate, % 30.3 (33) 58.8 (34) 46.0 (74) 44.8 (141)
Synchronized pregnancy rate, % 50.8 (63) 59.7 (62) 62.4 (157) 57.6 (282)
Esterman et al., 2008: (Mean: BCS 5.0, DPP 75 days)
Percentage Brahman (n)
Variable AN 1/4 3/8 1/2 3/4 BR
Estrous Response, %
62.9a (70)
44.3b (70)
68.6a (35)
45.4b (97)
37.5b (32)
45.2b (31)
Conception Rate, %
68.2 (44)
54.8 (31)
50.0 (24)
72.7 (44)
50.0 (12)
57.1 (14)
Timed-AI Pregnancy Rate, %
38.5 (26)
48.7 (39)
36.4 (11)
45.3 (53)
35.0 (20)
23.5 (17)
AI Pregnancy Rate, %
57.1 (70)
51.4 (70)
45.7 (35)
57.7 (97)
40.6 (32)
38.7 (31)
a,b (P < 0.05); J.V. Yelich, unpublished data
Select Synch + CIDR and TAI in Suckled Angus, Brahman, and respective crosses
!"#$%
&'(#)%
*!%!"#$%
+'%
!" #" $!"
#%"&'(")*"+,-"
+'./)0.1)"2/3"4./)"2.).5)"/12",-""
!"#$%
&'(#)%
*!%!"#$%
+'%
!" #67" $!"
8!"&'(")*"+,-"
+'./)0.1)"2/3"
,-(./%012134%0/"35%6%&'(#)%7%8+'%
9:41";1;%,-(./%&<-0/"35%6%&'(#)%
9:;<'."=6"">.(5':?):*1"*@")&."#A>/3"B.C.5)"B315&"D"E->F"/12"+,-"/12")&."GH).12.2"#A "" ">/3"EIAB315&"D"E->F")'./)0.1)("<(.2")*"(315&'*1:J."(<5KC.2"!"#$%&'%()#$H"" "!"#$*+),)#$L..@"5*M(6""NC**2"(/0?C.("M.'."5*CC.5).2"/)"/12"$!"2/3("?':*'")*"" "E->F":1(.'):*1")*"2.).'0:1.".()'*<("535C:1;"()/)<("*@"5*M("OG().'0/1P"%!$$Q"
""
AI pregnancy rates in Bos indicus type cows
Trt (P > 0.05), Group (P < 0.05), Trt × Group (P > 0.05); Esterman 2011
(89) (84) (75) (77) (97) (96) (46) (48) (332) (22) (327) (25)
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!"# $# %#
+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8+9//:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
/#0#1#2'3#
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!4# $# %#
;,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8;9//:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
<!%
/#0#1#2'3#
<!%
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
!"#$%
&'(#)%
!"#$%
*'%
!"# $# %#
=>9?@?09%+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(#)%6%7*'%8=>9:%
&'()*+(,*#-).#
/#0#1#2'3#
<!%
5()*#-(*(6*#),-#78##
<!%
!4#
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
!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&*%+3,+4"5/%&,3&6./7$%-&859.6&&"5-&:+"59.6&/,;6&&
&:+%%-&<&!+%"04%50&
&5&
=60+,.6&+%6*,56%>&
?&@,5/%*01,5&+"0%>&?&
!14%-A8B&*+%95"5/C&+"0%>&?&
DC5/E+,51F%-&*+%95"5/C&+"0%>&?&
859.6&G-DD& 'H& HI(J& KH(H& LM(M& GN('&
O,-& NM& HM(M& HI(L& GI(N& KG(K&
:+"59.6&G-DD& HL& GI(L& GH(N& PP(P& LI(N&
O,-& HL& HG(H& KM(H& JK(I& GL(I&
Q(&R(&S%$1/E>&.5*.#$16E%-&-"0"&
8
0 5 66 hr Treatment days
Modified 5-Day Co-Synch + CIDR “Bee Synch”
Gary Williams, TAMU
CIDR
CIDR Removal & PG (2x)
CIDR Insertion & GnRH + PG
GnRH & AI
• Suckled Bos indicus type cows: > 45 DPP > 5.0 BCS
• AI Pregnancy Rates: 52-58%
Bos taurus Beef Cow Synchronization
5 Day Co-Synch + CIDR
7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI
Response dependent: BCS, DPP, and cycling status
Bos indicus type Beef Cow Synchronization
7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI
Variable response
Dependent on herd management
5 & 7 Day Co-Synch + CIDR: NO!!!! No!!!!
Potential Systems
Modified 7 Day Select-Synch + CIDR and TAI
Bee Synch
Disadvantage: increased cattle handling
Summary
Synchronization systems in Bos taurus do not yield consistently similar results in Bos indicus type cattle
Reasons unclear: endocrine responses/follicle dynamics
Recently designed systems for Bos indicus show promise
Disadvantage: additional cattle handling
Summary
AI Synchronization success dependent on: Cycling status in heifers/cows BCS and DPP in cows Maintaining system & procedure compliance
Cost vs. Benefit
F L I G H T Z o n e
Courtesy: T. Thrift
9