Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:28:37.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of varying dose and pattern of administration of ovine FSH on the response to superovulation in performance tested, juvenile Simmental heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P.J. Broadbent ,
L.D. Tregaskes ,
D.F. Dolman  and
A.K. Smith
P.J. Broadbent
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
L.D. Tregaskes
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
D.F. Dolman
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
A.K. Smith
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
Get access

Abstract

The response of performance tested purebred Simmental heifers to various superovulatory treatments with ovine FSH was examined in two experiments. The heifers were 12 months old at embryo recovery, had average live weights of 468·4 kg (experiment 1) and 493·2 kg (experiment 2), and were fat (body condition score approx.4·0 to 4·5 units) at embryo recovery. In experiment 1, the effect of administering a total of 9·0 or 10·8 mg ovine FSH (Ovagen) administered as eight equal doses twice daily over 4 days was evaluated. In experiment 2, a total of 9·0 mg ovine FSH was administered either in equal doses in a level pattern or in declining doses twice daily over 4 days.

The response to the low, compared with the high, dose of ovine FSH in experiment 1 was 8·8 v. 10·5 ovulations (corpora lutea); 7·7 v. 7·7 totalova plus embryos recovered; 6·0 v. 4·1 viable embryos; 4·4 v. 3·1 grade 1 embryos (P > 0·05); and 1·7 v. 4·1 non-fertile ova(F < 0·01). In experiment 2, the response to the same total dose of ovine FSH administered in a level compared to a declining pattern was 8·5 v. 10·7 ovulations; 5·6 v. 9·6 total ova plus embryos; 3·1 v. 5·6 viable embryos; 2·5 v. 3·8 grade 1 embryos; and 1·7 v. 2·2 non-fertile ova. It was concluded that, although the differences between the treatments in the yields of viable and grade 1 embryos were not significantly different, there are practical and economic advantages to using a low rather than a high level of gonadotropin and there are no marked disadvantages in these areas to administering ovine FSH in a declining rather than a level pattern of doses.

Keywords

FSHheiferssuperovulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 181 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alfuraiji, M. M. 1989. The use of monoclonal antibody to pregnant mare serum gonodotrophin in superovulation of cattle. PhD thesis, Universityof Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Alfuraiji, M. M., Atkinson, T., Broadbent, P. J. and Hutchinson, J.S.M. 1993. Superovulation in cattle using PMSG followed by PMSG monoclonal antibodies. Animal Reproduction Science 33: 99–109.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. T. and Leung, P. C. K. 1990. The physiological basis of superovulation. Seminars in Reproductive Endocrinology 8: 219–231.Google Scholar
Bielanski, A. and Yadav, B. R. 1990. A note on fertilization and embryo production in superovulated cattle with various levels of subcutaneous fat tissue. Animal Production 51:426–430.Google Scholar
Callesen, H., Greve, T. and Hyttel, P. 1987. Premature ovulations in superovulated cattle. Theriogenology 28:155–166.Google Scholar
Chupin, D., Cognie, Y., Combarnous, Y., Procureur, R. and Saumande, J. 1987. Effect of purified LH and FSH on ovulation in the cow and ewe. In Follicular growth and ovulation rate in farm animals (ed. Roche, J. F. and O'Callaghan, D.), pp. 66–72. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
El-Banna, A.A. and Hafez, E. S. E. 1970. Sperm transport and distribution in rabbit and cattle female tract. Fertility and Sterility 21: 534–540.Google Scholar
Elsden, R. P., Nelson, L. D. and Seidel, G. E. 1978. Superovulation of cows with follicle stimulating hormone and pregnant mare's serum gonadotrophin. Theriogenology 9:17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folley, S. J. and Malpress, F. H. 1944. The response of the bovine ovary to pregnant mares' serum and horse pituitary extract. Proceedings of the Royal Society 132:164–188.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A., Lussier, J. G., Carruthers, T. D., Murphy, B. D. and Mapletoft, R. J. 1990. Superovulation of beef heifers with Folltropin: a new FSH preparation containing reduced LH activity. Theriogenology 33: 519–529.Google Scholar
Hasler, J. F., Brooke, G. P. and McCauley, A. D. 1981. The relationship between age and response to superovulation in Holstein cows and heifers. Theriogenology 15: 109 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawk, H. W. 1988. Gamete transfer in the superovulated cow. Theriogenology 29: 125–142.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. M., Weaver, A., Wards, R. L., Lun, S. and McNatty, K. P. 1990. Comparison of commercial gonadotrophins using bioassays. Proceedings of The New Zealand Society of Animal Production 50: 161–165.Google Scholar
Hyttel, P., Callesen, H., Greve, T. and Schmidt, M. 1991. Oocyte maturation and sperm transport in superovulated cattle. Theriogenology 35: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyttel, P., Greve, T. and Callesen, H. 1988. Ultrastructure of in vivo fertilization in superovulated cattle. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 82: 1–13.Google Scholar
Jainudeen, M. R., Hafez, E. S. E. and Lineweaver, J. A. 1966. Superovulation in the calf. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 12: 149–153.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Southgate, J. R. 1982. A comparison of different breeds and crosses from the suckler herd. 2. Carcass characteristics. Animal Production 35: 99–111.Google Scholar
Lerner, S. P., Thayne, W. V., Baker, R. D., Henschen, T., Meredith, S., Inskeep, E. K., Dailey, R. A., Lewis, P. E. and Butcher, R. L. 1986. Age, dose of FSH and other factors affecting superovulation in Holstein cows. Journal of Animal Science 63: 176–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindner, G. M. and Wright, R. W. 1983. Bovine embryo morphology and evaluation. Theriogenology 20: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle. Revised edition. Bulletin, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, no. 6.Google Scholar
Marden, W. G. R. 1953. The hormonal control of ovulation in the calf. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 43: 381–412.Google Scholar
Mariana, J. G., Mauleon, P., Benoit, M. and Chupin, D. 1970. Variability and repeatability of the number of ovulations obtained after injection of 1,600 iu PMSG and 1,500 iu hCG. Annales de Biologic Animale, Biochemie, Biophysique 10: 567–573.Google Scholar
Moore, N. W. 1975. The control of time of oestrus and ovulation and the induction of superovulation in cattle. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 25: 295–304.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. G., Enright, W. J., Crowe, M. A., McConnell, K., Spicer, L. J., Boland, M. P. and Roche, J. F. 1991. Effect of dietary energy intake on pattern of growth of dominant follicles during the oestrous cycle in beef heifers. journal of Reproduction and Fertility 92: 333–338.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. D., Mapletoft, R. J., Manns, J. and Humphrey, W. D. 1984. Variability in gonadotrophin preparations as a factor in the superovulatory response. Theriogenology 21: 117–125.Google Scholar
Newcomb, R. 1980. Investigation of factors affecting superovulation and non—surgical embryo recovery from lactating British Friesian cows. Veterinary Record 106: 48–52.Google Scholar
Newcomb, R., Christie, W. G. and Rowson, L. E. A. 1978. The non—surgical recovery and transfer of bovine embryos. In Control of reproduction in the cow (ed. Sreenan, J. M.), pp.292–304. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Newcomb, R., Christie, W. B., Rowson, L. E. A., Walters, D. E. and Bousfield, W. E. D. 1979. Influence of dose, repeated treatment and batch of hormone on ovarian response in heifers treated with PMSG. journal of Reproduction and Fertility 56: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newcomb, R., Rowson, L. E. A. and Trounson, A. O. 1978. The Sacrewell project: an on farm demonstration of the potential of egg transfer. Veterinary Record 103: 415–418.Google Scholar
Porter, S. J., Chadwick, J. P., Owen, M. G. and Page, S. J. 1988. Evaluation of seven ultrasonic machines for estimating carcass composition in live bulls. Animal Production 46: 496 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Sawyer, G. J., Broadbent, P. J. and Dolman, D. F. 1995. Ultrasound—monitored ovarian responses in normal and superovulated cattle given exogenous progesterone at different stages of the oestrous cycle. Animal Reproduction Science 38: 187–201.Google Scholar
Snyder, D. A. 1986. Superovulation of cows and heifers selected for twinning. Theriogenology 25: 200 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Tregaskes, L. D., Broadbent, P. J., Roden, J. A., Hutchinson, J. S. M. and Dolman, D. F. 1996. Attainment of puberty and response to superovulation in performance tested Simmental heifers. Animal Science In press.Google Scholar