1

Getting Large Numbers of Dairy Heifers Bred AI

Lessons from the Show-Me Select Program

David J. PattersonDivision of Animal Sciences

University of Missouri - Columbia

ResourceKnowledge

Reproductive Management

ProfitManagerDecisionAction

Outcome

2

= Breakeven ($)Annual Cow Cost ($)

Avg. Wean Wt. (lbs) x % Calf CropAvg. Wean Wt. (lbs) x % Calf Crop

Economic Importance

From Dearborn et al., 1973; Laster et al., 1979

Heritability of Reproductive TraitsHeritability of Reproductive Traits

Trait HeritabilityAge at puberty .41Weight at puberty .40First service conception .22Conception/estrous cycle exposed .27Failure to conceive .09Calf born alive .00Calf alive at 2 weeks .03Calf alive at weaning -.01

3

Adapted from Fox et al., 1988

Optimum Growth Ratefor Breeding Herd Replacement Heifers

Frame size

Item 1 3 5 7 9

Optimum wt at 1st estrus, lb 572 669 761 858 955

Mature wt, lb 880 1,027 1,173 1,320 1,467

Breed Group Growth Lean:Fat Age@Puberty Milk Jersey X X X XXXXX Here x Ang XX XX XXX XX Red Poll XX XX XX XXX Devon XX XX XXX XX Tarentaise XXX XXX XX XXX Brangus XXX XX XXXX XX Brahman XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX Gelbvieh XXXX XXXX XX XXXX Holstein XXXX XX XX XXXXXX Simmental XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXX Maine Anjou XXXXX XXXX XXX XXX Limosin XXX XXXXX XXXX X Charolais XXXXX XXXXX XXXX X Chianina XXXXX XXXXX XXXX X

More X’s correspond to: larger growth/mature sizemore leanlater puberty and more milk

4

From NAHMS Survey, 1994

Selected Management ProceduresUsed on Replacement Beef Heifers

Management practice Percent of operations Feed separately Pelvic measurements Reproductive tract scores Breed prior to mature herd Synchronize estrus Artificial insemination Body condition score Weigh Pregnancy diagnosis

31.8 3.0 1.2

12.7 3.0 3.3 4.6 7.9

15.9

5

Reproductive ManagementPrior to First Breeding Season

1. Target weight1. Target weight2. Reproductive tract score (RTS)2. Reproductive tract score (RTS)3. Pelvic measurements3. Pelvic measurements4. Estrus synchronization4. Estrus synchronization5. Sire selection (low BW EPD)5. Sire selection (low BW EPD)

from Byerley et al., 1987

Pregnancy Rates of HeifersBred at Pubertal or Third Estrus

% Pregnant

Pubertal 57

Third 78

6

From Anderson et al., 1991

Reproductive Tract Scores

RTS

Uterine Horns

Ovarian Length (mm)

Ovarian Height (mm)

Ovarian Width (mm)

Ovarian Structures

1

Immature, <20 mm diameter, no tone

15

10

8

No palpable follicles

2

20-25 mm diameter, no tone

18

12

10

8 mm follicles

3

20-25 mm diameter, slight tone

22

15

10 8-10 mm follicles

4

30 mm diameter, good tone

30

16

12

> 10 mm follicles, Cl possible

5

> 30 mm diameter >32 20 15 Corpus luteum

present

Adapted from Day and Anderson,1998; Anderson et al.,

1991

Endocrine and Ovarian Changes Associated with Puberty Onset

EstradiolEstradiol secretionsecretion

EstradiolEstradiol feedbackfeedback

LH secretionLH secretion

Follicle diameterFollicle diameter

Reproductive tract Reproductive tract scorescore 1 2 3 4 5

+

PrepubertalPrepubertal PeripubertalPeripubertal PubertalPubertal

7

From Bartol et al., 1995

Neonatal Exposure to Progesterone andEstradiol on Reproductive Tract in Beef Heifers

Age at Treatmentb Responsea Birth Day 21 Day 45 Control

Uterocervical weightc (g) 113.7d 123.5d 101.3d 173.9e

Myometrial area (mm2) 123.7g 141.8g 111.3g 162.8h

Endometrial area (mm2) 29.9i 32.4i 37.7i 45.4j

Gland Density (hits/mm2) 172.2d 380.3e 382.2e 486.9f

Uterine luminal protein (mg/flush) 2.8d 2.9d 2.3d 4.9e

Adapted from Patterson and Bullock, 1995

Reproductive Summary

RTS n Weight (lb)

Pelvic height (cm)

Pelvic width (cm)

Pelvic area (cm2)

Estrous response

(%) 1 61 484a 13.9a 10.9a 152a 54a

2 278 620b 14.1a 11.2a 158a 66b

3 1103 697c 14.5b 11.4b 166b 76c

4 494 733d 14.7c 11.7c 172c 83d

5 728 755d 14.7c 11.7c 172c 86d

8

745811740625725Range

12601288115010501100Max. wt.515477410425375Min. wt.

750700700700700Mode770755700675636Median777763708680644

Mean wt. (lb)

34264550413279258Number54321RTS

Weight range of heifers by RTS (Randle and Patterson, 2005)

1,2NS=natural service; SAI=synchronized and AI’eda,bP<.05; c,dP<.05Adapted from Randle and Patterson, 2005

73d68c61b44a105001016Total80d74c64b50a2835242577d72c62b48a3629322474d65c58b41a3320336368d54c52b31a661108255c63c42a38a5581

SAI (%)

NS (%)

SAI (%)

NS (%)

SAI2

(n)NS1

(n)RTS

42-d Preg rate21-d Preg rateExposed

Pregnancy rates of heifers in natural service versus synchronized and AI’ed herds

9

Heifer Program Requirements

Weight and body conditionWeight and body conditionRTSRTSPelvic measurementPelvic measurementService sire requirementService sire requirement

BW BW -- EPDEPD

Estrous synchronizationEstrous synchronizationAIAIEarly pregnancy diagnosisEarly pregnancy diagnosis

OwnershipOwnershipHealthHealth

vaccinationsvaccinationsparasite controlparasite control

Implant useImplant use

RTS: 6 to 8 weeks before breeding or 2 RTS: 6 to 8 weeks before breeding or 2 weeks before estrus synchronizationweeks before estrus synchronization

Begin synchronization when Begin synchronization when ≥≥ 50% of the heifers 50% of the heifers have RTShave RTS of 4 or 5of 4 or 5

Heifer ManagementHeifer Management

10

Begin breeding heifers 2Begin breeding heifers 2--3 weeks before cows3 weeks before cows

Use proven AI sires with high accuracy Use proven AI sires with high accuracy EPDsEPDs for for calving ease.calving ease.

Heifer Management Heifer Management

Heifer ManagementHeifer Management

DO NOT use growth promoting implantsDO NOT use growth promoting implants

Implants may disrupt or impair Implants may disrupt or impair development of reproductive organsdevelopment of reproductive organs

Effects of implant use are palpable at RTSEffects of implant use are palpable at RTS

11

Service Sire CriteriaService Sire Criteria

•Birth weight

•Calving ease

•Accuracy requirements on AI sires

Pregnancy ExaminationPregnancy Examination

Perform prior to 90 days gestationdetermine fetal age

Distinguish AI from natural service pregnancies

12

First statewide, on-farm beef heifer development and marketing program in the nationProducers are utilizing available technologies for on-farm heifer development that are now spilling over into the cowherdSignificant increase in interest & use of estrus synchronization and AI stemming perhaps from differential in sale prices, but more importantly from successful applicationA growing awareness, understanding and appreciation for the importance of reproductive management to the whole herd

ShowShow--MeMe--Select ReplacementSelect Replacement™™ Heifer ProgramHeifer Program

Accomplishments and Impacts

• Since 1997…………• 601 farms• 184 veterinarians• 71,223 heifers• 10 regional extension livestock coordinators• 17 regional extension livestock specialists

Show-Me-Select Replacement™ Heifer Program

Accomplishments and Impacts

13

• The marketing component • 67 sales at 10 locations• 16,379 heifers sold • $17,295,267 in gross sales• 5,544 perspective buyers

• 521 out of state• 1,915 successful buyers

• 198 out of state• 14 states

Show-Me-Select Replacement™ Heifer Program

Accomplishments and Impacts

The U.S. Beef HerdThe U.S. Beef Herd

69% of cow-calf enterprises are secondary income sources

50% of producers report an established breeding season of specific duration

34% of beef herds are routinely pregnancy checked

10% of beef cattle enterprises utilize AI

14

Artificial insemination and estrus synchronization are generally regarded as the most important and applicable of all

available biotechnologies to the beef cattle industry (Seidel, 1995).

From NAHMS Survey, 1998

36

14

20 21

39

13

20 19

34

1914

22

0

10

20

30

40

%

Estrus synchronization Artificial insemination Pregnancy diagnosis

Reasons for not Using Reproductive Procedures

Time/labor Cost Complicated Other

15

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

A unique point in time for the A unique point in time for the U.S. beef industryU.S. beef industry………………

Availability of tools and understanding of methods to control the estrous cycle in cattle

A changing market structure that recognizes and rewards quality

16

The challenge of transferring The challenge of transferring technology (estrus synchronization technology (estrus synchronization and AI) to the private sector exceeds and AI) to the private sector exceeds the task of research and development the task of research and development of still newer technologiesof still newer technologies………………..

CollectivelyCollectively

Adopt common terminology regarding the various estrus synchronization protocols

Identify and agree upon short lists of protocols heifers and cowsheat detect and AI vs fixed-time AI

Work to overcome the attitude of “What will this cost me?” ….to… “ I’m willing to make an investment in my herd”

17

Effective Estrus Synchronization Programs

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 estrous cyclingExcellent pregnancy rates

18

Products Currently AvailableCurrently Available

ProstglandinLutalyse, Estrumate, ProstaMate, In Synch, estroPLAN

GnRHCystorelin, Factrel, Fertagyl, OvaCyst

ProgestinsMGACIDR

What We Know About Progesterone & MGA . . .What We Know About Progesterone & MGA . . .

Induces puberty in beef heifers

Prevents expression of behavioral estrus

Blocks the preovulatory surge of LH

Blocks ovulation

19

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-PG14-19 d

Improved estrous responseImproved estrous responseMore heifers in heatMore heifers in heat

Similar fertilitySimilar fertilityNo change in conception or pregnancy rateNo change in conception or pregnancy rate

Improved synchronyImproved synchronyMore heifers in heat in a shorter timeMore heifers in heat in a shorter time

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

20

MGA (14 days)

1 14 33

PG

Wood et al., 2001

MGA-PG

Treatment days

MGA (14 days)

1 14 26 33

PGGnRHMGA Select

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

)

ESTRUSESTRUS

PG

Wood et al., 2001

21

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

)

ESTRUSESTRUS

PGGnRH

Wood et al., 2001

When to Add When to Add GnRHGnRHto 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

22

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

00 66 77 1414

CIDRCIDR--PG ProtocolPG Protocol

Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AICIDR

PGPG

CIDR CIDR InsertionInsertion

CIDR CIDR RemovalRemoval

00 77 1414Treatment daysTreatment days

CIDR CIDR InsertionInsertion

CIDR

CIDR Removal CIDR Removal & & PGPG

Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AI

23

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

% o

f hei

fers

in e

stru

s%

of h

eife

rs in

est

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

NoNoresponseresponse

CIDRCIDR--PG ProtocolPG ProtocolEstrous ResponseEstrous Response

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

24

1 14 26 33

MGA (14 days)

0 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

25

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 %)

FinalPregnancy

+ 2 %Kojima et al., 2004

SummarySummary

In yearling beef heifers:

CIDR-GnRH-PG improved synchrony of estruscompared with MGA Select

CIDR-GnRH-PG improved AI pregnancyrate over MGA Select

Kojima et al., 2004

26

Heat DetectHeat Detect

Estrous Response and Fertility in Beef Heifers After Treatment with Various Estrus Synchronization Protocols

MGA-PG 14-19MGA SelectCIDR-PG(d6)14d CIDR

CIDR-PG: 60hrCO-Synch CIDR: 60 hr14d CIDR: 72 hr

CIDR-PG(d7): 84hrSelect Synch +CIDR: 84 hr

Treatment Estrous response Pregnancy rate

Heat Detect & Time AI

Fixed-Time AI

No. %1129/1302 87433/499 87200/285 70713/830 86

No. %768/1302 59280/499 56112/285 39499/830 60

282/517 55289/504 57

258/525 49282/531 53518/853 61

0 14 23 30

PGPGCIDR (14 days)CIDR (14 days) ... 9 days ... ... 7 days ...

GnRHGnRH

0 14 23 30…….72hrs

PGPG

Treatment day

CIDR (14 days)CIDR (14 days) ... 9 days ... ... 7 days ...

GnRHGnRHGnRH& AI

27

60830499Totals45512318

67181217

76332516

51814115

8010814

63161013

5616912

51392011

52814210

7141299

5544248

6746317

7650386

6279495

5448264

6356353

6442272

6379501

Preg. rate (%)No. inseminatedNo. pregnantHerd

Pregnancy rates after administration of the 14-d CIDR protocol in field trials involving AI performed after observed estrus.

61853518Totals75322413

64503212

64694411

59392310

6281509

262778

5358318

6877528

671287

5248256

6885585

5182424

78973

6667442

61117711Preg. rate (%)No. inseminatedNo. pregnantHerd

Pregnancy rates after administration of the 14-dCIDR protocol in field trialsinvolving AI performed 72 hours after PG.