MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032983279 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab203

203 EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL FOLLICLE-STIMULATING HORMONE OR EQUINE CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN DURING THE PROTOCOL FOR TIMED AI IN HIGH-PRODUCING HOLSTEIN COWS

2009· article· en· W2032983279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Ayres, R. M. Ferreira, Milo C. Wiltbank, Pietro Sampaio Baruselli

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial inseminationEstrous cycleEquine chorionic gonadotropinEstradiol benzoateHerdAnimal scienceInseminationPregnancyMedicineIce calvingBovine somatotropinFollicleFollicle-stimulating hormoneDairy cattleHormoneInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyAndrologyLactationGrowth hormoneOvulationSpermLuteinizing hormoneOvariectomized rat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programs that allow timed AI (TAI) have been used to improve reproductive efficiency in dairy herds; however, in many cases pregnancies per AI (P/AI) during these programs remain suboptimal. In the present experiment, it was hypothesized that treatment with FSH or eCG at the time of the PGF2 treatment of the TAI protocol would increase fertility in dairy cattle. This experiment was performed in June 2008 (winter) and January 2009 (summer) on 2 commercial dairy farms located in southeast Brazil. On a random day of the estrous cycle (Day 0), 694 cows at 196 ± 138 days in milk (DIM) received 2 mg of estradiol benzoate (RICB®, Tecnopec, São Paulo, Brazil) i.m. and a releasing intravaginal device (P4; Primer®, Tecnopec), which was removed on Day 8 when 150 µg of PGF (Prolise®, ARSA, Buenos Aires, Argentina) i.m. were administered. At this time, the cows were stratified by days in milk (DIM), parity, number of insemination, milk production, presence of a CL on Day 0, and body condition score (BCS) and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: control (n = 232), consisting of no additional treatment; eCG (n = 232), consisting of 400 IU of eCG (Folligon®, Intervet, São Paulo, Brazil); and FSH (n = 230), consisting of 20 mg of FSH (Folltropin®, Bioniche, Belleville, Ontario, Canada). All cows received GnRH (100 µg of gonadorelin; Fertagyl®, Intervet) and were TAI 56 h after the removal of the device. Pregnancy diagnosis was performed 30 and 60 days after TAI. Also, a subset of animals (n = 89) was submitted to ultrasonographic exams to evaluate the diameter of the ovulatory follicles (ØOF), time to ovulation after P4 removal (TOV), and ovulation rate (OR). Statistical analyses were performed with logistic regression by PROC GLIMMIX of SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). There were no interactions of treatment with DIM, parity, number of insemination, BCS, locomotion score, sire, batch, inseminator, farm, or month; therefore, these variables were removed from the statistical model. The overall P/AI was different between treatments at 30 days after TAI [control = 28.0% (65/232), eCG = 29.7% (69/232), and FSH = 18.7% (43/230); P = 0.01], but not at 60 days [control = 21.6% (50/232), eCG = 24.1% (56/232), and FSH = 16.1% (37/230); P = 0.08]. Pregnancy loss was also similar among treatments [control = 23.1% (15/65), eCG = 18.8% (13/69), and FSH = 14.0% (6/43); P = 0.08]. In addition, the treatments (control, eCG, and FSH, respectively) were not different among ØOF (13.78 ± 0.52; 14.50 ± 0.59; and 15.35 ± 0.69 mm; P = 0.15); TOV (82.50 ± 2.14; 78.48 ± 2.35; and 78.96 ± 2.39 h after P4 withdrawal; P = 0.30); or OR [82.76% (24/29); 83.33% (25/30); and 83.33% (25/30); P = 0.44]. Thus, these data do not indicate a major fertility-enhancing effect of a single eCG or FSH treatment during protocol for TAI in high-producing dairy cows, contrary to the hypothesis of the present study. Tecnopec, Fazenda Campestre, Agrindus S/A, Echoa e Nutricell Nutrientes Celulares.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207