Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Fernando do Amaral Braga
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia (FMVZ/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2008-06-27 |
| Examining board members: |
Ed Hoffmann Madureira;
Rubens Paes de Arruda;
Eneiva Carla Carvalho Celeghini
|
| Advisor: | Ed Hoffmann Madureira |
| Abstract | |
The artificial insemination (AI) is a biotechnique that causes the fastest genetic improvement of a herd and, therefore should be essential in the modern livestock. Heat detection inefficiency and low ovarian ciclicity in the postpartum period establish a great obstacle on applicability of AI programs. In front of these difficulties, the use of timed artificial insemination (TAI) improves the results, because eliminates the heat detection and induces the ciclicity of cows in anestrous postpartum. In TAI protocols is fundamental the use of intravaginal devices for releasing progesterone (P4). In the current market, these devices are imported and made of silicone, a biocompatible polymer, but not biodegradable. Recently intravaginal progesterone devices made of PHB, a biodegradable polymer, have been studied. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency, in TAI program, of a new intravaginal device (Progestar®), on pregnancy rate, in Nelore cows, with a device made of silicone DIB®, currently available in the brazilian market. Were used 240 Nelore cows, in a generalized randomized block design, divided in two groups (control - DIB® and treatment - Progestar®, used in the synchronization protocols and TAI). Two experiments were done: the first experiment used new intravaginal devices (n=136), while the second experiment utilized used intravaginal devices (n=104). The pregnancy rates, of TAI (TAIPR) and breeding season (BSPR) (dependent variables), were compared by analysis of variance, separating the treatment, blocks and interactions effect. In experiment 1: there was no interaction between variables and treatment; there was no effect of treatment on TAIPR (DIB® - 66,7% and Progestar® - 65,8%) and on BSPR (DIB® - 95% and Progestar® - 94,7%); there was an interaction between postpartum period (PPP) and body condition score (BCS), in which animals in PPP1 (45 to 70 days) and BCS4 showed inferior results on TAIPR related to animals BCS5 and 6; there was also an interaction between PPP and ovary condition score (OCS), in which animals in PPP2 (71 to 90 days) not cyclic showed inferior results on TAIPR, related to cyclic animals; and there was also no effect of variables on TAIPR and BSPR. In experiment 2: there was no interaction between variables and treatment; there was no effect of treatment on TAIPR (DIB® 2 - 61,6% and Progestar® 2 - 55,8%) and on BSPR (DIB® 2 - 94,2% and Progestar® 2 - 88,5%); there was an interaction between animal category (Cat) and PPP, in which primiparous in PPP1 (32 to 55 days) showed inferior results on BSPR, related to primiparous in PPP2 (56 to 90 days); there was also an interaction between PPP and BCS, in which animals in PPP2 and BCS4 showed inferior results on BSPR, related animals BCS5; and there was also negative effect of PPP1 on TAIPR and one of the bulls on BSPR. This experiment showed that the Progestar® had the same efficiency on pregnancy rate, as the commercially available DIB® and both treatments have the potential to provide TAIPR above 50% and BSPR above 90%. (AU) | |