reproductive management for beef females cliff lamb assistant director and professor

Post on 01-Apr-2015

222 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Reproductive Management for Beef Females

Cliff Lamb

Assistant Director and Professor

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

USA Brazil

Year

Un

its

of

sem

en,

x106

Semen Sales in USA and Brazil from 1995 to 2011

(NAAB and ASBIA, 2011)

Estrous Synchronization and AI in Beef Cattle

Definitions

Synchronization Rate:% of females detected in estrus compared to total

number synchronized.

Conception Rate: % of females pregnant compared to number of females inseminated.

Pregnancy Rate:% of females pregnant compared to total number synchronized.

Effect of synchronization rate on pregnancy rates

Effect of synchronization rate on pregnancy rates

TAI in Bos taurus cows

Cidirol

TAI in Bos taurus heifers

Cidirol

Can we resynchronize estrus in non-pregnant cows?

CIDRHeat detect

and AI

TAI

Protocol for Resynchronization after TAI - Cows

0 13 20 23

7-d Co-Synch + CIDR protocol

Days relative to TAI

CIDRHeat detect

and AI

TAI

Protocol for Resynchronization after TAI - Heifers

0 12 19 22

7-d Co-Synch + CIDR protocol

Days relative to TAI

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NR0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 1 2 2

6

15

2119

8

3 31 0

36

0 0 0 0 0 0

5

55

25

8

2 1 0

29

No CIDR

CIDR

Days after TAI

No

. o

f co

ws

Protocol for Resynchronization after TAI

(Larson et al., 2009)

Does estrous synchronization affect subsequent fertility?

Answers to field results from commercial producers

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

PGFGnRHTAI &GnRH

CIDR

TAI First 21 d 21-42 d 42-63 d0

10

20

30

40

50

60 57

8

18

7

Calving group

Per

cen

t

n=275

n=85

n=37 n=34

90% Overall pregnancy rate

??

Pregnancy Rates

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 250.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

2.55.0

7.5

20.0

37.5

10.07.5

5.02.5

Days after GnRH

Per

cen

t

97.5% return to estrus rate!!

Estrus response of cows following the 7-day CO-Synch+CIDR protocol

Average Interval to estrus = 20.9 days

Economics of implementing TAI program

(Rodgers et al., 2011)

Control

CIDR Natural matingGnRH PGF

TAI + GnRH

TAI

Natural mating

Impact of Fixed-Time AI on Calving and Weaning

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 990

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TAI Control

Days of calving season

Cu

mu

lati

ve

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

co

ws

ca

lvin

g

Impact of Fixed-Time AI on Calving and Weaning

(Rodgers et al., 2011)

Impact of Fixed-Time AI on Calving Distribution

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 >700

10

20

30

40

2123

16 18

53 3

2

7

18

29

25

8

2 3 2

Days of the calving season

%

44% vs. 25%

Impact Calving Distribution on Calf Value

0 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 75 >75300

350

400

450

500

550

600

$518$509

$457

$420

Days of the calving season

$

Treatment

Item Control TAI

No. of cows 615 582

Weaning rate, % 78 84

Weaning weight, lb 176 ± 4a 193 ± 4b

ab Means within row differ (P < 0.01)

Impact of Fixed-Time AI on Calving and Weaning

(Rodgers et al., 2011)

17 kg

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Overall-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$55

$19

$72

$139

-$6

$36$30

$47 $49

Location

Net

gai

n o

r lo

ss

(Rodgers et al., 2011)

Change in value based on herd sire costs

Bull Value

Item $2,500 $3,500 $4,500

Increased returns (increased value of AI calves)

$58.33 $58.33 $58.33

Decreased costs decreased costs of clean-up bulls)

$29.55 $39.29 $49.04

Decreased returns (Attributed to fewer clean-up bulls included in decreased costs calculation)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Increased costs (additional labor, semen, AI supplies, etc.)

$46.10 $46.10 $46.10

Gain per cow exposed to AI $41.78 $51.52 $61.27

Can I use sexed semen in beef cattle operations?

Semen sorting overview

Nozzle

Forward Fluorescence Photodiode DNA Content Laser beam

Sort Receptacle

Waste Catcher

Charged

Deflection

Plates

Last Attached Drop

Pulse of Charge Applied

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

Drop Delay

Side Fluorescence Orientation

Objective

Year 1 Year 2 Year3 Overall0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

78

68

62

69

4750

56

51

Sexed semen Control

Per

cen

t ag

e fe

mal

e ca

lves

Gender ratio after 20% of cows are inseminated to sexed semen

(Hall et al., 2010)

Embryo Production of Superovulated Angus Cows

Total Transferable Unfertilized Degenerate0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1411.7

6.5

3.12.0

12.0

4.5

6.3

1.0

ConventionalSexed

No.

of

em

bry

os/o

va

Category

****

** Treatments differ (P < 0.05)

32.4%49.5%

Heifer Development

(Cushman et al., 2012)

Influence of calving period on reproductive longevity

(Cushman et al., 2012)

Influence of calving period on weaning weights

Body weight Age Genetics Nutrition Reproductive management Rate of gain Plane of nutrition Body composition Animal handling

Factors affecting attainment of puberty

Body weight Age Genetics Nutrition Reproductive management Rate of gain Plane of nutrition Body composition Animal handling

Factors affecting attainment of puberty

Body weight Age Genetics Nutrition Reproductive management Rate of gain Plane of nutrition Body composition Animal handling

Factors affecting attainment of puberty

Effect of timing of gain on attainment of puberty and reproductive performance

Lynch et al., 1997 JAS 75:1715-1722

d 0 d 112 d 168250

300

350

Feeding Period

Bo

dy

we

igh

t, k

g

ADG, kg/d d0-112

EVENGAIN - 0.45LATEGAIN – 0.11

ADG, kg/d d112-168

EVENGAIN – 0.45LATEGAIN – 0.91

ADG, lbs/d d0-168

EVENGAIN – 0.45LATEGAIN – 0.45

EVENGAIN

LATEGAIN

Effect of Timing of Gain on Reproductive Performance

(Lynch et al., 1997)

d 0 d 112 d 168250

300

350

400

Feeding Period

Bo

dy

we

igh

t, k

g

ADG, kg/d d0-112

EVENGAIN - 0.45LATEGAIN – 0.26

ADG, kg/d d112-168

EVENGAIN – 0.80LATEGAIN – 0.95

ADG, lbs/d d0-168

EVENGAIN – 0.57LATEGAIN – 0.49

EVENGAIN

LATEGAIN

Effect of Timing of Gain on Reproductive Performance

(Lynch et al., 1997)

Year 1

d 0 d 112 d 168200

250

300

350

Feeding Period

Bo

dy

we

igh

t, k

g

ADG, kg/d d0-112

EVENGAIN - 0.39LATEGAIN – 0.05

ADG, kg/d d112-168

EVENGAIN – 0.74LATEGAIN – 1.30

ADG, lbs/d d0-168

EVENGAIN – 0.53LATEGAIN – 0.50

EVENGAIN

LATEGAIN

Effect of Timing of Gain on Reproductive Performance

(Lynch et al., 1997)

Year 2

Effect of Timing of Gain on Reproductive Performance

Item EVENGAIN LATEGAIN

Age at puberty, dYear 1 388 384Year 2 386a 407b

Weight at puberty, kg Year 1 330 315Year 2 314 314

(Lynch et al., 1997)

ab Means within row differ (P < 0.01)

Effect of Timing of Gain on Reproductive Performance

Item EVENGAIN LATEGAIN

First service PR, %Year 1 55.3 55.5Year 2 56.4 71.1

Overall PR, %Year 1 87.2 86.8Year 2 87.5 87.5

(Lynch et al., 1997)

Estrous cyclicity responses of heifers of distinct body conditions to energy restriction

and repletion.

Cassady et al., 2009, JAS 87:2255-2261 and JAS 2262-2273

BCS 3

BCS 5

BCS 7

Design

BCS 7

BCS 5

Restriction Re-feeding

Termination of estrous cycles

Resumption of estrous cycles

??(FAT)

(MODERATE)

Cassady et al., (2009)

  Treatments

 Item MODERATE FAT

Initial BW, kg 425a 515b

Initial BCS 5.0a 7.1b

BW at anestrus, kg 354 380

BCS at anestrus 3.1 3.3

Days to anestrus 66.5a 155.9b

Change in BW, BCS and days to anestrus during feed restriction

Cassady et al., (2009)

  Treatments

 Item MODERATE FAT

BW at anestrus, kg 354 380

BCS at anestrus 3.1 3.3

BW at 1st estrous cycle, kg 455a 513b

BCS at 1st estrous cycle 5.2a 6.0b

Days to 1st estrous cycle 67.7 78.9

Change in BW, BCS and days to 1st estrous cycle after initiation of feed repletion

Cassady et al., (2009)

The impact of animal handling on fertility

Acclimation of Heifers

August September October December0

20

40

60

80

100Acclimated Control

% o

f p

ub

erta

l hei

fers

Cooke et al. (2009)

P < 0.01

****

**

Acclimation of Heifers• Pregnancy during the breeding season

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

20

40

60

80

100 Acclimated Control

Week of the breeding season

% o

f p

reg

nan

t h

eif

ers

Cooke et al. (2009)

P < 0.01

****

**

Acclimation of Heifers

Cappellozza et al. (2011) – Abstract #545

Treatment x Month P = 0.02** P < 0.01

**

October November December January February March April0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Acclimated Control

Month of the study

Pu

ber

tal,

%

**

**

Thank You!

Contact Information:Cliff Lamb

University of Florida3925 HWY 71

Marianna, FL 32446Tel: 850-394-9124

Email: gclamb@ufl.edu

top related