Effect of PRID-Delta devices associated with shortened estrus synchronization protocols on estrous response and fertility in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the effect of a once-used progesterone (P4) intravaginal device (PRID) associated with four different shortened P4-based estrus synchronization (ES) protocols on estrous response (ER) and pregnancy per AI (P/AI) in cyclic and acyclic lactating dairy cows. Cows (n=465) were randomly assigned to one of the following protocols: 1) 2PGG, cows were given a PRID-Delta and 100 μg GnRH i.m. at PRID insertion (day 0). The PRID was left for 5 d, and 25 mg of dinoprost (PGF 2α ) i.m. given twice at PRID removal and 24 h later; 2) 2PGGe, same treatments as 2PGG plus 500 IU of eCG i.m. at PRID removal; 3) 2PGe, same treatments as 2PGGe, except GnRH was not given at PRID insertion; 4) PGe, same treatments as 2PGe, except PGF was only given at PRID removal. A total of 258 cows received a new PRID-Delta containing 1.55 g of P4, whereas 207 cows received a once-used PRID. Estrus was determined from P4 device removal until 96 h after using an automated heat detection system. Cows in estrus were given a second GnRH at AI and those without signs of estrus by 96 h after PRID removal were given GnRH and timed-AI (TA I). All inseminations were performed by one technician with commercially available frozen-thawed semen. Ultrasonography was performed at initiation of protocol and 28-34 days post AI to determine cyclicity and pregnancy status, respectively. Cows receiving once-used P4 devices had greater ER than cows receiving a new device (59.9 vs. 50.0; P=0.029), but P/AI did not differ between P4 devices, respectively (P>0.1; 40.6 vs 40.7%). Cyclic cows were less likely to display estrus than acyclic cows by a factor of 0.66 (P=0.036). Cows subjected to the 2PGe (2.41; P<0.01) protocol were more likely to display estrus than cows subjected to the 2PGG, whereas cows subjected to the PGe protocol did not differ (0.94; P=0.8) from those in the 2PGG group. Despite differences in ER, neither cyclicity nor estrus synchronization protocol affected P/AI (overall 40.6%). In summary, cyclic cows, those given a new P4 device and those subjected to either 2PGG or PGe protocol had reduced ER. However, all the factors examined had no significant effect on P/AI. All the estrus synchronization protocols resulted in acceptable fertility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".