351 A COMPARISON OF 2 APPROACHES FOR THE USE OF GnRH TO SYNCHRONIZE FOLLICLE WAVE EMERGENCE FOR SUPEROVULATION
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although oestradiol has been used successfully to synchronize follicle wave emergence for superovulation, it cannot be used in many countries. Attention has turned to alternatives, including the use of GnRH to induce ovulation of a dominant follicle, which will be followed by emergence of a new follicular wave in 1 to 2 days. However, GnRH synchronizes follicular wave emergence only when it induces ovulation and administration of GnRH at random stages of the oestrous cycle results in ovulation in less than 60% of animals. The objective of the study was to compare superovulatory response and ova/embryo production following synchronization of follicle wave emergence for superovulation with GnRH administered 2 days after insertion of a progestin device, with a protocol in which GnRH is administered 7 days after administration of prostaglandin F2a and a progestin device. Beef donors of various breeds were placed at random into 1 of 2 groups and superstimulated by replicate so that one cow in each group had ova/embryos collected on the same day. Sixty-six superstimulations were performed in this study; 26 were performed in 13 donors that were superstimulated twice in a crossover design, and 40 donors were superstimulated once (i.e. 20 donors in each treatment group). Cows in group 1 received CIDR devices (Zoetis Animal Health, USA) on Day –2 and 100 µg of GnRH (Cystorelin, Merial USA) on Day 0; FSH treatments were initiated on Day 2 with 288 mg of Folltropin-V (Vetoquinol, Canada) given in twice-daily decreasing doses for 4 days. Prostaglandin F2a (PGF; 35 mg dinoprost, Lutalyse, Zoetis) was given with the last 2 injections of Folltropin-V and CIDR were removed with the last Folltropin-V administration (i.e. Day 6). Donors received a second GnRH at the onset of oestrus and were AI 8 and 20 h later. Donors that were still in standing oestrus at the second AI were AI again at 30 h. Ova/embryo collections were done on Day 14 and embryos were classified according to the IETS manual. Cows in group 2 received an injection of PGF and a CIDR on Day –7 and 100 µg of GnRH on Day 0; FSH treatments were initiated on Day 2 and the remainder of the treatment protocol was as in group 1. Data (total ova/embryos collected and transferable embryos) were analysed by ANOVA for mixed models, using treatment as a fixed variable and cow (i.d.) as a random variable. The group 1 cows produced a mean (± s.e.m.) of 18.6 ± 1.9 total ova/embryos of which 12.7 ± 1.5 were of transferable quality (7.2 ± 1.3 grade 1). Cows in group 2 produced a mean (± s.e.m.) of 19.5 ± 1.7 total ova/embryos, of which 14.8 ± 1.5 were of transferable quality (8.9 ± 1.2 grade 1). Although 2 more transferable embryos were obtained in group 2, differences were not significant (P > 0.3). At the same time as this experiment was done, 214 other cows were superstimulated in this practice, yielding an average of 7.9 transferable embryos per donor. Results suggest that both approaches are efficacious for the superstimulation of beef cows. Special thanks to Vetoquinol/Bioniche Animal Health, USA for support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle