• Like
  • Save
New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

on

  • 1,309 views

Dr. Paul Fricke presented this information as a webinar for DAIReXNET on Monday, April 22, 2013. For more information, please see our archived webinars page at ...

Dr. Paul Fricke presented this information as a webinar for DAIReXNET on Monday, April 22, 2013. For more information, please see our archived webinars page at www.extension.org/pages/15830/archived-dairy-cattle-webinars.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,309
Views on SlideShare
1,309
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
73
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • High activity with Rumination dropEvents on Graph(not as in DF1 that we can’t display more then one event per day on the graph)

New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs Presentation Transcript

  • New Tools to ManageDairy CattleReproductionPaul M. Fricke, Ph.D.Professor of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
  • New Tools• Accelerometer systems fordetection of activity/estrus• Strategies for resynchronizationof ovulation• New methods for nonpregnancydiagnosis
  • HeatimeAccelerometer Systems
  • Heatime
  • Collaborating FarmMajestic View DairyLancaster, WIDairy farmin southwesternWisconsin milking1,000 cowsImplemented theHeatime system inlate 2009
  • Experimental DesignCows (n = 112) from 46 to 52 DIM were submitted toa G-P protocol to synchronize estrus:US +BloodUS +Blood +KamarGnRH PGF23X USMon Mon Wed Thu Fri MonUSCows that failed to synchronize (n = 23) were excludedresulting in 89 cows included in the final analysis
  • Percentage of cows determined to be in estrus,and distribution of cows by estrous activity andovulation Valenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127ItemAccelerometersystemHeatmountdetectors-------- % (n/n) -------- -------- % (n/n) --------Estrus 71 (63/89) 66 (59/89)Ovulation 95 (60/63) 93 (55/59)No ovulation 5 (3/63) 7 (4/59)No Estrus 29 (26/89) 34 (30/89)Ovulation 35 (9/26) 47 (14/30)No ovulation 65 (17/26) 53 (16/30)
  • Interval from AI to ovulationValenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127Mean = 7.9 ± 8.7 hn = 38 cowsAI too late(after ovulation)AI too early(before ovulation)
  • 7 Days 56 hGnRH PGF2 GnRH16 hTAIPursley, Mee, & Wiltbank, 1995Theriogenology 44:91524-32 hOvulation
  • Conception Rates of Lactating CowsReceiving TAI at Various Intervals fromthe Second GnRH Injection of OvsynchPursley et al., 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2139-214432%41%45%41%37%010203040500 8 16 24 32Hours after 2nd GnRH InjectionConceptionRate(%)
  • Reproductive performance oflactating dairy cows managedfor first service using timedartificial insemination with orwithout detection of estrus usingan accelerometer systemP. M. Fricke, A. Valenza, J. O. Giordano,M. C. Amundson, and G. Lopes Jr.J. Dairy Sci. 2012 abstract
  • TAIGnRH PGF GnRH14 d 7 d 56 h 12 hEstrousActivityDIM 39±3 VWP = 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3Treatment 1TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH14 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 hEstrousActivityTreatment 2TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH7 d 56 h 12 hTreatment 3EstrousActivity
  • Table 1. Effect of treatment on mean (±SD) days to firstAI and pregnancies per AI (P/AI).TreatmentItem 1 2 3n 326 334 331Days to 1st AI 67.4 ± 10.4b(50 - 92)62.6 ± 8.5a(51 - 78)74.8 ± 2.2c(72 - 78)P/AI (%) at 35 d 31.1 31.1 38.4a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ (P<0.0001)Percentages with different superscripts differ (P=0.05)
  • Treatment 2: Presynch/Ovsynch with AI to activityDIMTAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±314 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 hEstrousActivity2.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI31% of cowsP/AI at 35 d = 35% (37/105)2.1 – Cows inseminated to activity69% of cowsP/AI at 35 d = 29% (67/230)
  • Treatment 3: Presynch/Ovsynch with 100% TAIDIMTAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±37 d 56 h 12 h3.1 – Cows with activity receiving TAI70% of cowsP/AI at 35 d = 41% (95/232)3.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI30% of cowsP/AI at 35 d = 32% (32/99)EstrousActivity butno AI14 d 12 d
  • Table 2. Effect of treatment and parity on pregnanciesper AI (P/AI)1ParityTreatment Primiparous Multiparous P-value1 36.5 (46/126) 27.7 (56/202) 0.102 32.3 (41/127) 30.4 (63/207) 0.723 47.3 (61/129) 32.7 (66/202) 0.01Overall 38.7 (148/382) 30.3 (185/611) 0.01
  • Economic comparison among treatmentsTreatmentItem 1 2 3Net Present Value ($/cow/d) 5.85 5.86 5.86Total activity system cost ($) 72,500 72,500 -Activity system cost ($/d) 22.35 22.35 -Activity system cost($/cow/d)0.027 0.027 -
  • Dataflow II System
  • Activity Graph
  • Technologies forResynchronization ofOvulationPaul M. Fricke, Ph.D.Professor of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Fertility to TAI by AI NumberBred # %Conc #Preg #Open Other Abort %Tot===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ====1 47 211 237 181 19 362 30 81 187 84 9 203 27 58 159 62 9 164 30 44 104 59 2 125 28 25 63 42 2 76 32 12 25 18 0 3OTHERS 33 8 16 9 0 2TOTALS 35 445 821 474 42 100
  • Materials and Methods- Conducted on a commercial Farm in Wisconsin milking8,000 cows from April to December 2010.- Cows were enrolled at 25 3 days after a previous AI.- Pregnancy diagnoses were performed using transrectalultrasonography at 32 3 days after AI.
  • Experimental DesignP TAIAI G2P TAIAI G2G1 +BloodG1 +BloodGPG 32 (n=289)GPG 39 (n=219)0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3Days after previous AI
  • G1 +Blood P TAIAIPre-GnRH G2GGPG 32 (n=335)Experimental DesignP TAIAI G2P TAIAIPre-GnRH G2P TAIAI G2G1 +BloodG1 +BloodG1 +BloodGPG 32 (n=289)GGPG 39 (n=229)GPG 39 (n=219)0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3Days after previous AI
  • 01020304050GGPG 32 GPG 32 GGPG 39 GPG 39Effect P-valueDay 0.33GnRH 0.03Day x GnRH 0.5537%34%41%34%(n=269) (n=219)(n=335) (n=289)Effect of Treatment onFertility 32 days afterResynch TAIPregnanciesperAI(%)
  • 7 DaysPre-G56 hPGF G2 12 hTAI32 daysAfter AI39 d After AIPreg checkwith USResynchStrategy7 Days 56 hG1 PGF G212 hTAI
  • Technologies forNonpregnancy DiagnosisPaul M. Fricke, Ph.D.Professor of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Chemical Pregnancy Tests• Three commercial assays have beendeveloped to determine pregnancy status incattle by measuring PSPB (Sasser et al., 1986) andPAG’s (Zoli et al., 1991, Green et al., 2005) in maternalblood.
  • PSPB Concentrations in PregnantDairy CowsSasser et al., 1986( n = 5 )
  • PAG Resynch Schedule Silva et al., 2007Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SatTAId 2d 9d 16d 23 GnRH PAGd 30 PGF GnRH TAId 37d 44d 51US d 27
  • 6:30 a.m.Time from samplecollection toreceive outcomes:~36 h6:00 p.m8:00 amArrive at Monsanto,St. Louis, MO3:00 p.m.OvernightExpress
  • Accuracy of PAG ELISA for determinationof pregnancy status 27 d after timed AISilva et al., 2007; J. Dairy Sci. 90:4612-4622Sensitivity1% (no./no.)Specificity2% (no./no.)PPV3% (no./no.)NPV4% (no./no.)Accuracy5% (no./no.)Kappa95.4(596/625)94.2(987/1048)90.7(596/657)97.1(987/1016)94.6(1583/1673)0.891Proportion of samples from pregnant cows with a positive PAG ELISA.2Proportion of samples from not-pregnant cows with a negative PAG ELISA.3Proportion of PAG ELISA with a pregnant outcome that truly were pregnant.4Proportion of PAG ELISA with a not-pregnant outcome that truly was not-pregnant.5Proportion of pregnancy status, pregnant and not-pregnant, that was correctly classified.
  • Accuracy of a PSP-B ELISA comparedwith transrectal ultrasonography (US)Romano and Larson, 2010; Theriogenology 74:932-939Day after AI28 30 35US (no.) 246 246 246PSP-B (no.) 246 229 246Sensitivity (%) 93.9 96.0 97.2Specificity (%) 95.5 93.9 93.6PPV (%) 94.7 92.2 92.0NPV (%) 94.7 96.8 97.8Accuracy (%) 94.7 94.8 95.1Uncertain samples (%) 8.5a (21) 4.8ab (11) 3.3b (8)Kappa value 0.92 0.92 0.95a,bWithin a row, percentages with different superscripts differ
  • ≥35 days postbreeding and 60 days postcalvingFrequency of testing is a consideration
  • Short communication: Field evaluationof a pregnancy confirmation test usingmilk samples in dairy cows LeBlanc, 2013Target population:683 cows on 8 different farms previously diagnosedpregnant by a veterinarian and ≥60 d of gestationMilk test outcomes were compared tooutcomes using transrectal palpationSensitivity = 99.2% (98.2 – 99.7%)Specificity = 95.5% (78.2 – 99.2%)Positive predictive value = 99.8% (99.1 – 99.96%)Negative predictive value = 80.8% (61.3 – 90.9%)