Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus - Beef Improvement Federation

Synchronization Response: 

Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus Cattle 

2012 

Beef Improvement Federation 

Houston, Texas 

Joel V. Yelich, PhD 

Department of Animal Sciences 

University of Florida, Gainesville 

G. Allen Bridges, PhD 

University of Minnesota 

North Central Research and 

Outreach Center 

Grand Rapids, MN 

Bos taurus beef cattle 

Bos indicus Based Cattle 

“Positive Attributes” 

Maternal and(or) terminal breeds 

Positive carcass traits: marbling,tenderness, yield 

Excellent production in temperate climates 

Heat tolerant 

Increased parasite & disease tolerance 

Improved production in subtropical climates 

Bos indicus Based Cattle 

“Negative Attributes” 

Reproductive challenges with 

Bos indicus cattle 

Differences in concentrations and (or) sensitivities 

to GnRH, LH, estrogen, and progesterone 

Increased incidence of estrous cycles with three 

and four follicle waves 

Older age at puberty 

Decreased carcass quality & tenderness 

Potential handling stress issues 

Management driven 

Difficult to detect estrus, due to shorter estrous 

duration, decreased estrous intensity, and 

increased incidence of silent heats 

Postpartum period is extended 

More susceptible to (-) effects of handling stress 

1

Synchronization Systems 

Producer Perspective 

MANIPULATING THE ESTROUS CYCLE 

Cost effective 

Ease of implementation 

Minimal cattle handlings 

Regulation of CL 

regression 

Synchronization 

of follicular 

growth & inducing 

ovulation for 

timed-AI 

Prevent 

expression of 

estrus and 

induce estrous 

cycles 

Yield consistent & acceptable pregnancy rates 

Fit into producers operation 

Meet their goals and objectives 

Physical & labor resources 

ProstaglndinF 2 

(PG) 

GnRH 

Progestogens 

(MGA) 

(CIDR) 

Table 1. Commonly used hormones in estrous synchronization and their trade names a . 

Hormone (Abbreviation) 

Gonadotropin Hormone 

Releasing Hormone (GnRH) 

Progestins 

Progesterone 

Synthetic progestin 

Prostaglandin F 2" 

(PGF) 

Commercial Products b 

Cystorelin ! , Factrel ! , Fertagyl ! , OvaCyst ! 

CIDR ! , Intravaginal progesterone-releasing insert 

Melengestrol acetate (MGA ! ), Orally-active feed 

additive 

Lutalyse ! , Estrumate ! , ProstaMate ! , estroPLAN, In- 

Synch 

a Table adapted from M.L. Day and D.E. Grum, The Ohio State University 

b 

The commercial products often do not have the same chemical composition as the hormone 

produced by the animal’s body. In many cases, these compounds have similar effects on the 

reproductive system as the native hormone. Please read and follow label instructions when 

using these products. 

Estrous Synchroniza0on Terminology 

Estrous Response 

Percentage of females that exhibited estrus during 

synchronized period 

Concep;on Rate 

Percent of heifers that conceived to AI of those that 

exhibited estrus 

Timed-‐AI Pregnancy Rate 

Percentage of females that became pregnant following 

a ;med-‐AI 

AI or Synchronized Pregnancy Rate 

Percentage of females that became pregnant 

to AI of total treated 

Beef Heifer Synchronization 

MGA + PG 

Estrus 

(Low fertility) 

Synchronized 

Estrus & AI 

MGA (14 days) 

PG 

1 14 16 20 31 33 38 

Treatment days 

Brown et al., 1988 

2

Yearling Bos taurus beef heifers 

synchronized with MGA + PG 

TRT # 

Estrous 

Rate (%) 

Conception 

Rate (%) 

AI Pregnancy 

Rate (%) 

Brown et al., 1988 157 83.0 69.0 57.0 

Patterson, 1990 323 83.0 74.0 61.0 

$ %'%&" % 

!"# $% 

56("7018"9*(:6(;"701"

,-.-/0%,1"/2%3%&'(# ) %4"5%6+' % 

4-./"2-/-5/".12"67"2.3"#"/8"$!".12",67".99"181: 

*-+;812-*+"#%:'(")8?"@A/)"?1B4"./",67" 

!"#$% 

&'(# )% *!% 

#%"&"'(")*+" 

!"#$% 

+'% 

!" #" $!" 

,*-./0-1/"2.3" 

4-./"2-/-5/".12"67"" 

*!% 

,-(./%&0-1/"23%4%&'(# )% 

2+(34(."*56"%!"-4"%%"'",3-+("27"89-'"7/:;",-"*56"" 

!"#$% 

!"#$% 

&'(# )% %!"&"%%"'()" 

+'% 

!" 

*(+,-.+/-"0,1" 

#" $!" 

+,(-.%&/,0."12%3%&'(# )% 

3,&45&/"+67"*$"#"$"%"-4.,&".%,"89&'."3:";9.%":0,?.950'"54"3:"@!"#"$"%&'A"-&,"&,BC9&,1"45&".%9'"D&5.5?5E"""""""" 

!"#$% 

!"#$% 

4!% 

*'% 

!"#"$" 

&'(# )% %&'" *$"#"$"%&'" 

(" )" !" 

+&,-./,0."1-2" 

! 

!"#$%&'(&)*+,"-./*0&*1&23&,-%40"056&-"7%/&#%78%%0&79%&:; 

;;9?@?09%+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(# )% 6%7*'%8=>9: % 

&'(# )% 2'3# 

!"#$% 

>

Working Hypothesis 

Reducing progesterone concentra5ons during development 

of the follicular wave would: 

Progesterone causes an LH (Roberson et al., 1989; Dias et al., 2009) 

Increase dominant follicle growth and diameter (Carvalho et al., 2008) 

Increase pre-‐ovulatory estradiol produc5on (Sirois and Fortune, 1990) 

Enhance oocyte viability (Revah and Butler, 1996) 

Enhance subsequent luteal func5on (Butler et al., 1996) 

Increase estrous response and concep5on rates 

to AI and 5med-‐AI 

Courtesy Brandy Sparks, Purdue 

!"#$%&'(&)%*+,-./012%&*%+3,+4"5/%&,3&6%"+$157&#%%3&8%13%+9&,3& 

!"#$%&'('#&#+%%-157&& 

!)!& 5! 

:90+,.9& 

)%9*,59%;&

Beef Cow Synchronization 

Anestrus in US beef cattle at start of 

synchronization 

Suckling calf 

Decreased percentage of estrous cycling cows at breeding 

Synchronization response 

• Dependent on nutritional status pre-calving 

Percentage cycling 

Range 

8-69% 

2212 cows 

12 locations 

69 dpp 

Range 

17-67% 

851 cows 

6 locations 

56 dpp 

Lucy et al., 2001; Larson et al., 2006 

Range 

6-81% 

724 heifers 

5 locations 

14.7 months 

1 3 

5 7 

Effectiveness of the CIDR to induce estrus in 

lactating anestrous (non-cycling) cows 

70 

Percent exhibiting estrus 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

FL IL NEB MU MT OK ALL 

Lucy et al., 2001 

Pregnant (%) 

Fig 3. Synchronization responses with 7 day 

CIDR in Bos taurus and Bos indicus type cows 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

58 

Select Synch 

+ CIDR + TAI 

Bos taurus 1 

49 

54 

n=498 n=332 n=539 

33 

n=891 

Select Synch + 

CIDR + TAI 

Bos indicus 2 Co-Synch + 

CIDR 

Bos taurus 1 Co-Synch + 

CIDR 

Bos indicus 3 ! 

(Larsen et al., 2006 1 ; Saldarriaga et al., 2004 3 ; Yelich, 2000 3 , Esterman, 2011 2 ) 

!"#$%&'(&)*+,"-./*0&*1&23&,-%40"056&-"7%/&#%78%%0&79%&:; 

;;Q& 

M>(SN& 

O0&P&LTTQ& 

R&I(I>& 

R&I(I>& 

6

Select Synch + CIDR and TAI in suckled 

Bos indicus type cows 

Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Combined 

Estrous response,% 47.6 (63) 45.2 (62) 52.9 (157) 48.5 (282) 

Conception rate, % 68.8 (30) 60.7 (28) 77.1 (83) 68.8 (141) 

Timed AI 

pregnancy rate, % 30.3 (33) 58.8 (34) 46.0 (74) 44.8 (141) 

Synchronized 

pregnancy rate, % 50.8 (63) 59.7 (62) 62.4 (157) 57.6 (282) 

Esterman et al., 2008: (Mean: BCS 5.0, DPP 75 days) 

Percentage Brahman (n) 

Variable AN 1/4 3/8 1/2 3/4 BR 

Estrous 

Response, % 

Conception 

Rate, % 

Timed-AI 

Pregnancy 

Rate, % 

AI Pregnancy 

Rate, % 

Select Synch + CIDR and TAI in Suckled 

Angus, Brahman, and respective crosses 

62.9 a 

(70) 

68.2 

(44) 

38.5 

(26) 

57.1 

(70) 

44.3 b 

(70) 

54.8 

(31) 

48.7 

(39) 

51.4 

(70) 

a,b (P < 0.05); J.V. Yelich, unpublished data 

68.6 a 

(35) 

50.0 

(24) 

36.4 

(11) 

45.7 

(35) 

45.4 b 

(97) 

72.7 

(44) 

45.3 

(53) 

57.7 

(97) 

37.5 b 

(32) 

50.0 

(12) 

35.0 

(20) 

40.6 

(32) 

45.2 b 

(31) 

57.1 

(14) 

23.5 

(17) 

38.7 

(31) 

,-(./%012134%0/"35%6%&'(# ) %7%8+' % 

!"#$% 

&'(# )% *!% 

#%"&'(")*"+,-" 

!"#$% 

+'% 

AI pregnancy rates in Bos indicus type cows 

!" +'./)0.1)"2/3" 

#" $!" 

4./)"2.).5)"/12",-"" 

9:41";1;%,-(./%&/3"EIAB315&"D"E->F")'./)0.1)("9?@?09%+,(-.%/01023%/."24%5%&'(# )% 6%7*'%8=>9: % 

(6*#B.,62#C# 

# #D8AE#),-#&78#*'()*+(,*3#(3# 

# #LF#4F#MF#),-#"=##8,#)>>#*'()*+(,*3F# 

# #*N?#-?3(3#O14#+;P#?@#QR9 1S ## 

# #OT.3(P#N('(#)-+:,:3*('(-#/#2# 

# #)J)'*F#N:*2#*2(#:,:*:)>#-?3(#;:U(,# 

& 

=60+,.6& 

# #)*#D8AE#N:*2-')N)>=##9(+)>(3# 

:+%%-&& 

# #N('(#-(*(6*(-#@?'#(3*'(3#@):>:,;#*?#(I2:K:*# 

# #(3*'F#6?,6&.5*.#$16E%-&-"0"& 

7

Modified 5-Day Co-Synch + CIDR 

“Bee Synch” 

Gary Williams, TAMU 

Bos taurus Beef Cow Synchronization 

CIDR Insertion 

& GnRH + PG 

CIDR Removal 

& PG (2x) 

GnRH 

& AI 

CIDR 

0 5 66 hr 

Treatment days 

• Suckled Bos indicus type cows: > 45 DPP > 5.0 BCS 

• AI Pregnancy Rates: 52-58% 

5 Day Co-Synch + CIDR 

7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI 

Response dependent: 

BCS, DPP, and cycling status 

Bos indicus type Beef Cow Synchronization 

Summary 

7 Day Select Synch + CIDR and TAI 

Variable response 

Dependent on herd management 

5 & 7 Day Co-Synch + CIDR: NO!!!! No!!!! 

Potential Systems 

Modified 7 Day Select-Synch + CIDR and TAI 

Bee Synch 

Disadvantage: increased cattle handling 

Synchronization systems in Bos taurus do not yield 

consistently similar results in Bos indicus type cattle 

Reasons unclear: endocrine responses/follicle dynamics 

Recently designed systems for Bos indicus show promise 

Disadvantage: additional cattle handling 

Summary 

AI Synchronization success dependent on: 

Cycling status in heifers/cows 

BCS and DPP in cows 

Maintaining system & procedure compliance 

Cost vs. Benefit 

Courtesy: T. Thrift 

F 

L 

I 

G 

H 

T 

Z 

o 

n 

e 

8

Bos taurus vs. Bos indicus - Beef Improvement Federation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?