new tools to manage reproduction programs

41
New Tools to Manage Dairy Cattle Reproduction Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D. Professor of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin- Madison

Upload: dairexnet

Post on 20-May-2015

1.360 views

Category:

Education


2 download

DESCRIPTION

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.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

New Tools to Manage Dairy Cattle

Reproduction

Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.

Professor of Dairy Science University of Wisconsin-Madison

Page 2: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

New Tools

• Accelerometer systems for detection of activity/estrus

• Strategies for resynchronization of ovulation

• New methods for nonpregnancy diagnosis

Page 3: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Heatime

Accelerometer Systems

Page 4: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Heatime

Page 5: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Page 6: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Page 7: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Collaborating Farm

Majestic View DairyLancaster, WI

Dairy farmin southwestern Wisconsin milking 1,000 cows

Implemented the Heatime system in late 2009

Page 8: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Experimental DesignCows (n = 112) from 46 to 52 DIM were submitted to a G-P protocol to synchronize estrus:

US + Blood

US + Blood + Kamar

GnRH PGF2

3X US

Mon Mon Wed Thu Fri Mon

US

Cows that failed to synchronize (n = 23) were excluded resulting in 89 cows included in the final analysis

Page 9: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Percentage of cows determined to be in estrus, and distribution of cows by estrous activity and ovulation Valenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127

ItemAccelerometer

systemHeatmount detectors

  -------- % (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)

Page 10: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Interval from AI to ovulation Valenza et al., 2012; J. Dairy Sci. 95:7115-7127

Mean = 7.9 ± 8.7 hn = 38 cows

AI too late(after ovulation)

AI too early(before ovulation)

Page 11: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

7 Days 56 h

GnRH PGF2 GnRH

16 h

TAI

Pursley, Mee, & Wiltbank, 1995Theriogenology 44:915

24-32 h

Ovulation

Page 12: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Conception Rates of Lactating Cows Receiving TAI at Various Intervals from the Second GnRH Injection of OvsynchPursley et al., 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2139-2144

32%

41%45%

41%37%

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 8 16 24 32

Hours after 2nd GnRH Injection

Con

cept

ion

Rat

e (%

)

Page 13: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Page 14: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows managed for first service using timed artificial insemination with or without detection of estrus using an accelerometer system

P. M. Fricke, A. Valenza, J. O. Giordano, M. C. Amundson, and G. Lopes Jr.

J. Dairy Sci. 2012 abstract

Page 15: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

TAIGnRH PGF GnRH

14 d 7 d 56 h 12 h

Estrous Activity

DIM 39±3 VWP = 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3

Treatment 1

TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH

14 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 h

Estrous Activity

Treatment 2

TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRH

7 d 56 h 12 h

Treatment 3

Estrous Activity

Page 16: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Table 1. Effect of treatment on mean (±SD) days to first AI and pregnancies per AI (P/AI).

Treatment

Item 1 2 3

n 326 334 331

Days 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 38.4

a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ (P<0.0001)Percentages with different superscripts differ (P=0.05)

Page 17: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Treatment 2: Presynch/Ovsynch with AI to activity

DIM

TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving

39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3

14 d 12 d 7 d 56 h 12 h

EstrousActivity

2.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI31% of cows

P/AI at 35 d = 35% (37/105)

2.1 – Cows inseminated to activity69% of cows

P/AI at 35 d = 29% (67/230)

Page 18: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Treatment 3: Presynch/Ovsynch with 100% TAI

DIM

TAIGnRHPGF PGF PGF GnRHCalving

39±3 53±3 65±3 72±3 75±3

7 d 56 h 12 h

3.1 – Cows with activity receiving TAI70% of cows

P/AI at 35 d = 41% (95/232)

3.2 – Cows without activity receiving TAI30% of cows

P/AI at 35 d = 32% (32/99)

EstrousActivity but

no AI14 d 12 d

Page 19: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Table 2. Effect of treatment and parity on pregnancies per AI (P/AI)1

Parity

Treatment Primiparous Multiparous P-value

1 36.5 (46/126) 27.7 (56/202) 0.10

2 32.3 (41/127) 30.4 (63/207) 0.72

3 47.3 (61/129) 32.7 (66/202) 0.01

Overall 38.7 (148/382) 30.3 (185/611) 0.01

Page 20: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Page 21: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Economic comparison among treatments  Treatment

Item 1 2 3

Net Present Value ($/cow/d) 5.85 5.86 5.86

Total activity system cost ($)

72,500 72,500 -

Activity system cost ($/d) 22.35 22.35 -

Activity system cost ($/cow/d)

0.027 0.027 -

Page 22: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Dataflow II System

Page 23: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Activity Graph

Page 24: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Technologies for Resynchronization of Ovulation

Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.Professor of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-

Madison

Page 25: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Fertility to TAI by AI Number

Bred # %Conc #Preg #Open Other Abort %Tot ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ==== 1 47 211 237 181 19 36 2 30 81 187 84 9 20 3 27 58 159 62 9 16 4 30 44 104 59 2 12 5 28 25 63 42 2 7 6 32 12 25 18 0 3 OTHERS 33 8 16 9 0 2 TOTALS 35 445 821 474 42 100

Page 26: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Effect of Timing of Initiation of Resynch and Presynchronization

with GnRH on Fertility of Resynchronized Inseminations in

Lactating Dairy Cows

G. Lopes Jr., J. O. Giordano, A. Valenza, M. M. Herlihy, J. N. Guenther, M. C. Wiltbank, and P. M. FrickeUniversity of Wisconsin – Madison

Page 27: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Materials and Methods- Conducted on a commercial Farm in Wisconsin milking

8,000 cows from April to December 2010.- Cows were enrolled at 25 ± 3 days after a previous AI.- Pregnancy diagnoses were performed using

transrectal ultrasonography at 32 ± 3 days after AI.

Page 28: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Experimental Design

P TAIAI G2

P TAIAI G2

G1 + Blood

G1 + Blood

GPG 32 (n=289)

GPG 39 (n=219)

0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3

Days after previous AI

Page 29: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

G1 + Blood P TAIAI

Pre-GnRH G2

GGPG 32 (n=335)

Experimental Design

P TAIAI G2

P TAIAIPre-

GnRH G2

P TAIAI G2

G1 + Blood

G1 + Blood

G1 + Blood

GPG 32 (n=289)

GGPG 39 (n=229)

GPG 39 (n=219)

0 25±3 32±3 39±3 46±3 49±342±3

Days after previous AI

Page 30: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

GGPG 32 GPG 32 GGPG 39 GPG 390

10

20

30

40

50

Effect P-value

Day 0.33

GnRH 0.03

Day x GnRH 0.55

37%34%

41%

34%

(n=269) (n=219)(n=335) (n=289)

Effect of Treatment onFertility 32 days after Resynch TAI

Pre

gn

an

cie

s p

er

AI (

%)

Page 31: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

7 Days

Pre-

G

56 hPGF G2 12 h TAI

With

CL

32 daysAfter AI

39 d After AI

Preg check with US

Resynch

Strategy

82%

7 Days 56 h

G1 PGF G2

12 h

TAI

With NO CL

Page 32: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Technologies for Nonpregnancy Diagnosis

Paul M. Fricke, Ph.D.Professor of Dairy ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-

Madison

Page 33: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Chemical Pregnancy Tests

• Three commercial assays have been developed to determine pregnancy status in cattle by measuring PSPB (Sasser et al., 1986)

and PAG’s (Zoli et al., 1991, Green et al., 2005) in maternal blood.

 

Page 34: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

PSPB Concentrations in Pregnant Dairy Cows

Sasser et al., 1986( n = 5 )

Page 35: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs
Page 36: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

PAG Resynch Schedule Silva et al., 2007

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SatTAI

d 2

d 9

d 16

d 23 GnRH PAG d 30 PGF GnRH TAId 37 d 44

d 51

US d 27

Page 37: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

6:30 a.m.

Time from sample collection to

receive outcomes: ~36 h

6:00 p.m

8:00 am

Arrive at Monsanto, St.

Louis, MO

3:00 p.m.

Overnight Express

Page 38: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Accuracy of PAG ELISA for determination of pregnancy status 27 d after timed AISilva et al., 2007; J. Dairy Sci. 90:4612-4622

Sensitivity1

% (no./no.)

Specificity2

% (no./no.)

PPV3

% (no./no.)

NPV4

% (no./no.)

Accuracy5

% (no./no.)

Kappa

95.4(596/625)

94.2(987/1048)

90.7(596/657)

97.1(987/1016)

94.6(1583/1673)

0.89

1Proportion 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.

Page 39: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Accuracy of a PSP-B ELISA compared with transrectal ultrasonography (US) Romano and Larson, 2010; Theriogenology 74:932-939

Day after AI

28 30 35

US (no.) 246 246 246

PSP-B (no.) 246 229 246

Sensitivity (%) 93.9 96.0 97.2

Specificity (%) 95.5 93.9 93.6

PPV (%) 94.7 92.2 92.0

NPV (%) 94.7 96.8 97.8

Accuracy (%) 94.7 94.8 95.1

Uncertain 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

Page 40: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

≥35 days postbreeding and 60 days postcalvingFrequency of testing is a consideration

Page 41: New Tools to Manage Reproduction Programs

Short communication: Field evaluation of a pregnancy confirmation test using milk samples in dairy cows LeBlanc, 2013

Target population:683 cows on 8 different farms previously diagnosed pregnant by a veterinarian and ≥60 d of gestation

Milk test outcomes were compared to outcomes using transrectal palpation

Sensitivity = 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%)