Efficacies of PGF2α, Ovsynch, and CIDR Protocols on Synchronization of Estrus in Buffaloes: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the efficacies of PGF2α, GnRH, and CIDR on estrus synchronization of native buffaloes in Bangladesh. A total of 93 buffaloes of second to fifth parity were treated either with PGF2α, Ovsynch, or CIDR protocol. In the PGF2α experiment, buffaloes were treated with either 500 μg (n=20) or 875 μg (n=20) of cloprostenol, and artificial inseminations (AI) were done at 72 hrs after PGF2α injection. In the Ovsynch protocol, buffaloes were treated with 200 μg (n=11) or 350 µg (n=16) of GnRH at day 0, followed by 875 µg of PGF2α at day 7, and again 200 μg or 350 µg of GnRH at day 9, and AI was performed at 16 hrs after the second GnRH administration. In the CIDR protocol, a CIDR implant was placed intravaginally for 12 days with either 500 μg (n=13) or 875 μg (n=13) of cloprostenol at 24 hrs before the removal of the CIDR, and AI was performed at 72 hrs after the removal of the CIDR. The results showed that estrus response and conception rates did not differ significantly between PGF2α and GnRH protocols. Higher doses of PGF2α and GnRH did not result in any significant increase in estrus response in buffaloes. CIDR induced estrus in all buffaloes in both doses of PGF2α. Estrus rate was significantly higher (P=0.035) in buffaloes of the CIDR protocol than in the PGF2α and Ovsynch groups. Conception rates of buffaloes did not differ significantly (P=0.823) among the protocols. The calving rates were higher (P=0.278) in buffaloes synchronized with CIDR than in PGF2α and Ovsynch groups. The costs of materials per buffalo synchronized, conceived, and calved were higher in the CIDR protocol and lower in the PGF2α than in other protocols. However, considering all the expenses and calving rates, costs per buffalo calves were cheaper in the CIDR group with a higher dose of PGF2α. In conclusion, CIDR can be applied to increase the reproductive efficiency of buffaloes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".