Chester Clinic

 

Abstract:

Comparison of the Efficiency and Accuracy of Three Estrous
Detection Methods to Indicate Ovulation in Beef Cattle 1

George A. Perry2
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
BEEF 2005 - 24

of estrous detection aids can correctly identify the majority of animals that will ovulate. The ability to successfully artificially inseminate cattle requires determining the appropriate time to inseminate. Therefore, detection of standing estrus is a major factor in the success or failure Reproductive failure is a major factor effecting of most artificial insemination programs. The the production and economic efficiencies of objective of these experiments was to determine dairy and beef operations (Bellows et al., 2002). the efficiency and accuracy of three estrous Furthermore, the success of any breeding detection methods (visual, penile deviated bull, program requires detecting the animals that are and Estrus Alert estrous detection aids) to ready to be bred and inseminating them at the determine if animals were going to ovulate. correct time prior to ovulation. With natural Fifty-three postpartum beef cows were service, the herd bull detects when cows should synchronized with an injection of gonadotropin be inseminated, but when artificial insemination releasing hormone (GnRH) followed by an
is used the herdsman must now decide when injection of prostaglandin F2 (PG) seven days cows are ready to be inseminated. Therefore, later. Estrus was monitored for 72 hours failing to detect estrus and incorrect detection of following the PG injection by visual estrus estrus can result in significant economic losses detection and Estrus Alert estrous detection (Heersche and Nebel, 1994). aids. Thirty-seven beef heifers were synchronized with an injection of GnRH and Currently, detection of standing estrus is the insertion of a Controlled Internal Drug Releasing best indicator of ovulation in cattle. Fertilization (CIDR) device on day 0. On day 7 an injection
rates following natural service or artificial of PG was administered and the CIDR was insemination in cattle range from 89 to 100% removed from half the heifers on day 7 and the when ovulation occurs (Kidder et al., 1954; remaining heifers on day 14. Estrus was Bearden et al., 1956; Diskin and Sreenan, 1980; monitored for 5 days following CIDR removal by Maurer and Chenault, 1983; Gayerie de Abreu visual estrus detection, a penile deviated bull, et al., 1984). Furthermore, timing of and the Estrus Alert estrous detection aids. insemination plays a role in the success of any Ovulation was determined in all animals by breeding program. Saacke et al., (2000) transrectal ultrasonography between 48 and 96 reported that when insemination occurs before hours after the onset of standing estrus. The the onset of standing estrus (>30 hrs before percentage of animals detected in standing ovulation), fertilization rates are low but embryo estrus and the percentage correctly identified as quality is high; however, when insemination going to ovulate was similar (P > 0.78) among all occurs >12 hours after the initiation of estrus three methods. In summary, intensive visual (<18 hours before ovulation), fertilization rates estrus detection, a marker animal, or proper use are high but embryo quality is low. Therefore several aids have been developed to assist in the detection of standing estrus in cattle. The The author would like to thank A. Drew, C. Moret, K. objective of these experiments were to compare Vander Wal, and all the SDSU Beef Breeding and Cow-Calf Units' staff for their assistance in conducting the efficiency and accuracy of intensive visual this research. This research was funded by the South estrus detection, a penile deviated bull, and the Dakota State University Experiment Station, and Estrus Alert estrous detection aid, to determine products were donated by Pfizer (CIDR and Lutalyse; when animals are ready to ovulate. New York), and Phoenix Scientific (Ovacyst and Prostamate; St. Joseph, MO), and Western Point, Inc. (Estrus Alert; Merrifield, MN). 2 Assistant Professor Material and Methods
estrus were classified as being not in estrus. By penile deviated bull, animals were classified in Experimental Design standing estrus if they stood to be mounted by Postpartum multiparous (3 to 13 years old) the bull. When animals would not stand to be Angus-crossed beef cows (n = 53) at the South mounted, but the bull continued to try to mount Dakota State Uniersity Beef Breeding Unit were them, they were classified as suspect. When injected with gonadotropin releasing hormone the bull showed no interest in the animal they (GnRH, 100 µg as 2 mL of Ovacyst i.m.;
were classified as not in estrus. By the Estrus Phoenix Scientific St. Joseph, MO) on day 0, Alert estrous detection aid, animals were and prostaglandin F classified in standing estrus when the patch had Prostamate i.m., Phoenix Scientific, St. Joseph, been completely activated (Figure 1a). When MO) on day 7. Estrus Alert patches (Western the patch was partially activated animals were Point, Inc. Merrifield, MN) were placed on the classified as suspect (Figure 1b), and as not in tailhead at the time of PG administration on day estrus when the patch had no signs of activation 7. Estrus was detected for 72 hours by 1) visual observation every three hours and 2) the amount of activation of an Estrus Alert estrous Efficiency and Accuracy detection aid. All cows were examined by The efficiency of each estrous detection method transrectal ultrasonography 48 to 96 hours after was determined by the percentage of animals the onset of estrus to determine if ovulation had that ovulated and were detected in standing estrus (the number of animals detected in standing estrus and ovulated divided by the Angus and Angus-cross beef heifers (n = 37) at number of animals that ovulated multiplied by the South Dakota State Uniersity Cow-Calf Unit 100). The accuracy of each estrous detection were injected with GnRH (100 µg as 2 mL of method to predict ovulation was determined by Ovacyst i.m.; Phoenix Scientific St. Joseph, MO) the percentage of animals detected in standing and a Controlled Internal Drug Release (CIDR; estrus that did ovulate and the animals not Pfizer, New York, NY) was inserted into the detected in standing estrus that did not ovulate vagina on day 0. Estrus Alert patches (Western (identified correctly), and by the percentage of Point, Inc. Merrifield, MN) were placed on the animals detected in standing estrus that did not tailhead at the time of GnRH administration on ovulate and the animals not detected in standing day 0. On day 7 all heifers received an injection estrus that did ovulate (identified incorrectly). 2α (25 mg as 5 mL of Lutalyse i.m., Pfizer, New York, NY), and CIDR were removed on day Statistical Analysis 7 or 14. Estrus was detected for five days The percentage of animals detected in standing following CIDR removal by 1) visual observation estrus, and the percentage of cows correctly three times daily for at least 30 minutes, 2) a (detected in standing estrus and ovulated, not penile deviated bull, and 3) the amount of detected in estrus and did not ovulate) and activation of an Estrus Alert estrous detection incorrectly (detected in standing estrus and did aid. All heifers were examined by transrectal not ovulate, not detected in standing estrus and ultrasonography between 48 and 96 hours after did ovulate) identified by each estrous detection the onset of estrus to determine if ovulation had method were analyzed using categorical data modeling in SAS (Proc Catmod). The preceding variables were analyzed for an effect of Determination of Standing Estrus Animals were classified as 1) in standing estrus, 2) suspect, or 3) not in estrus. By visual detection, animals were classified as in standing estrus when they stood to be mounted by The number of animals that ovulated, as another animal and did not try to move. When determined by transrectal ultrasonography are animals would not stand to be mounted, but shown in Table 1. Seventy-four animals exhibited secondary signs of standing estrus ovulated following estrus synchronization (37 (i.e. congregating, mounting other animals, clear cows and 37 heifers). The number of animals mucus from vagina, nervous and restless, or detected in standing estrus, suspect, or not in roughed up tailhead) animals were classified as standing estrus by visual observation, by the suspect, and animals that showed no signs of penile deviated bull, and by the Estrus Alert estrus detection aids, are shown in Table 1. efficiencies are very similar to efficiencies There was no difference (P > 0.65) in the reported for grazing dairy cows (visual with tail efficiency of estrous detection among the three paint 98% and the HeatWatch electronic estrous estrous detection methods (91%, 92%, and 89% detection system 91%) over a 6 week breeding for visual observation, penile deviated bull, and season (Xu et al., 1998). Estrus Alert patches; respectively). In both the heifer and cow groups there were Of the 53 postpartum beef cows, one cow animals that ovulated without being detected in ovulated but was never detected in standing standing estrus. Similar results have been estrus by either visual observation or the Estrus reported in peripubertal heifers where 7% and Alert patches. However, two cows were 25% of heifers had a silent or nonstanding detected in standing estrus by both visual estrus, respectively (Morrow et al., 1976). observation and the Estrus Alert patches but did Following treatment with a CIDR or MGA along not ovulate. Among the 37 heifers two heifers to induce estrous cycles in anestrous cows 25% ovulated but were never detected in standing and 43% of cows ovulated without exhibiting estrus by visual observation, a penile deviated signs of standing estrus, respectively (Perry et bull, or the Estrus Alert patches. One heifer was al., 2004). Furthermore, detection of standing detected in standing estrus by visual observation estrus prior to the first postpartum ovulation has and the penile deviated bull and did ovulate, but ranged from 20% to 50% depending on the was not detected in standing estrus by the frequency of estrus detection (see review by Estrus Alert patches. Wettemann, 1980). The percentage of animals identified correctly by In the present study there was no difference in each of the three estrous detection methods did the accuracy of three estrous detection methods not differ (P > 0.79). The percentage of cows used and all were greater than 90%. correctly determined to be in standing estrus Inseminating animals detected in estrus with any and going to ovulate also did not differ (P > 0.31) of these methods would result in the majority of among estrous detection methods (Table 2). A the animals getting inseminated around the time similar (P > 0.87) number of animals were of ovulation. Furthermore, similar pregnancy determined to be suspect by intensive visual rates have been reported for once daily observation, a penile deviated bull, and by the insemination and twice daily insemination when Estrus Alert patches (2, 1, and 2, respectively). animals have been detected in standing estrus (Nebel et al., 1994; Graves et al., 1997). Discussion
However, the timing of insemination after the onset of standing estrus can influence Detection of standing estrus can be one of the fertilization rates and embryo quality (Dalton et time consuming herd management chores al., 2001). When insemination occurs before the related to estrous synchronization and artificial onset of standing estrus (>30 hrs before insemination. However, the success of any ovulation), fertilization rates are low but embryo breeding program requires detecting the animals quality is high; however, when insemination that are ready to be bred and inseminating them occurs >12 hours after the initiation of estrus at the correct time prior to ovulation. Therefore, (<18 hours before ovulation), fertilization rates failing to detect estrus and incorrect detection of are high but embryo quality is low (Saacke et al., estrus can result in significant economic losses 2000). Inseminating cattle approximately 12 (Heersche and Nebel, 1994). Furthermore, hours after the onset of standing estrus should using continuous monitoring of over 500 animals result in the best fertility with good fertilization exhibiting natural estrus in 3 separate studies rates and good embryo quality (Saacke et al., indicated that greater than 55% of cows initiated 2000; Dalton et al., 2001). standing estrus from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Hurnik and King, 1987; Xu et al., 1998; Perry unpublished data). The efficiency of each of the methods of estrous detection tested was 89% or Detection of standing estrus can be one of the greater. Indicating that each of the methods most time-consuming chores related to estrous used can very effectively determine which synchronization and artificial insemination. animals have been or are in standing estrus However, the success of any artificial even when visual observation is difficult. These insemination program requires detecting the animals that are ready to be bred (standing observation in addition to the use of estrous estrus) and inseminating them at the correct detection aids could improve fertility by detecting time. Several estrous detection aids have been the most possible number of animals ready to be developed to assist with this time consuming inseminated and indicating the most appropriate chore. These estrus detection aids can very time for insemination. effectively determine which cows are or have been in standing estrus, therefore relieving the time required to visually observe cattle for standing estrus. However, increased visual Literature Cited
Bearden, H. J., W. M. Hansel, and R. W. Bratton. 1956. Fertilization and embryonic mortality rates of bulls with histories of either low or high fertility in artificial breeding. J. Dairy Sci. 39:312-318. Bellows, D. S., S. L. Ott, and R. A. Bellows. 2002. Review: Cost of reproductive diseases and conditions in cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist 18:26-32. Dalton, J. C., S. Nadir, J. H. Bame, M. Noftsinger, R. L. Nebel, and R. G. Saacke. 2001. Effect of time of insemination on number of accessory sperm, fertilization rate, and embryo quality in nonlactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2413-2418. Diskin, M. G., and J. M. Sreenan. 1980. Fertilization and embryonic mortality rates in beef heifers after artificial insemination. J. Reprod. Fertil. 59:463-468. Gayerie de Abreu, F., G. E. Lamming, and R. C. Shaw. 1984. A cytogenetic investigation of early stage bovine embryos - relation with embryo mortality. In: 10th International Congress of Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, Urbana, IL. p 82. Graves, W. M., H. H. Dowlen, K. C. Lamar, D. L. Johnson, A. M. Saxton, and M. J. Montgomery. 1997. The effect of artificial insemination once versus twice per day. J. Dairy Sci. 80:3068-3071. Heersche, G., Jr., and R. L. Nebel. 1994. Measuring efficiency and accuracy of detection of estrus. J. Dairy Sci. 77:2754-2761. Hurnik, J. F., and G. J. King. 1987. Estrous behavior in confined beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 65:431-438. Kidder, H. E., W. G. Black, J. N. Wiltbank, L. C. Ulberg, and L. E. Casida. 1954. Fertilization rates and embryonic death rates in cows bred to bulls of different levels of fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 37:691-697. Maurer, R. R., and J. R. Chenault. 1983. Fertilization failure and embryonic mortality in parous and nonparous beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 56:1186-1189. Morrow, D. A., L. V. Swanson, and H. D. Hafs. 1976. Estrous behavior and ovarian activity in peripuberal heifers. Theriogenology 6:427-435. Nebel, R. L., W. L. Walker, M. L. McGilliard, C. H. Allen, and G. S. Heckman. 1994. Timing of artificial insemination of dairy cows: Fixed time once daily versus morning and afternoon. J. Dairy Sci. 77:3185-3191. Perry, G. A., M. F. Smith, and T. W. Geary. 2004. Ability of intravaginal progesterone inserts and melengestrol acetate to induce estrous cycles in postpartum beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 82:695-704. Saacke, R. G., J. C. Dalton, S. Nadir, R. L. Nebel, and J. H. Bame. 2000. Relationship of seminal traits and insemination time to fertilization rate and embryo quality. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 60-61:663-677. Wettemann, R. P. 1980. Postpartum endocrine function of cattle, sheep and swine. J. Anim. Sci. 51 Suppl Xu, Z. Z., D. J. McKnight, R. Vishwanath, C. J. Pitt, and L. J. Burton. 1998. Estrus detection using radiotelemetry or visual observation and tail painting for dairy cows on pasture. J. Dairy Sci. 81:2890-2896. Table 1. Number of animals detected in standing estrus, suspect, or not in standing estrus by visual observation, a penile deviated bull, or the Estrus Alert patch Penile Deviated Bull Standing Estrus (cows;heifers)a Suspect (cows;heifers)b Not in standing estrus (cows;heifers)c Ovulated (cows;heifers)d aNumber of animals determined to be in standing estrus by each estrous detection method. bNumber of animals that indicated signs of standing estrus but did not fully meet the requirements of standing estrus. cNumber of animals determined to not be in standing estrus by each estrous detection method. dNumber of animals that each method was used on that actually ovulated as determined by transrectal ultrasonography. dThe number of animals detected in standing estrus and ovulated divided by the number of animals that ovulated multiplied by 100. Table 2. The accuracy of visual estrous detection, a penile deviated bull, and the Estrus Alert estrus detection aid Penile Deviated Bull Percent identified correctlya Percent identified incorrectlyb Percent identified in standing estrus that ovulatedd Percent identified in standing estrus that ovulated (including suspect animals)eaThe number of animals detected in standing estrus and ovulated plus the number of animals determined not to be in standing estrus and not ovulating divided by the total number of animals X 100. bThe number of animals detected in standing estrus and did not ovulated plus the number of animals determined not to be in standing estrus and did ovulate divided by the total number of animals X 100. cThe number of animals that indicated signs of standing estrus but did not fully meet the requirements of standing estrus divided by the total number of animals X 100. dThe number of animals detected in standing estrus and ovulated divided by the total number of animals detected in standing estrus X 100. eThe number of animals detected in standing estrus or suspect and ovulated divided by the total number of animals detected in standing estrus and suspect X 100. Figure 1. Examples of an Estrus Alert patch on an animal that was in standing estrus (A), a patch on an animal classified as suspect (B), and a patch on an animal classified as not in standing estrus.

Source: http://www.celodeteccion.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Beef_2005-24_Perry.pdf