Progesterone-based timed AI protocols for Bos indicus cattle I: Evaluation of ovarian function

Three experiments evaluated ovarian dynamics and circulating progesterone (P4) during P4-based protocols initiated with GnRH, estradiol benzoate (EB), or no additional treatment in Nelore (Bos indicus) cattle. In Exp 1 (n = 59 cows), a 5-d P4-only protocol (P-5d; D0: P4 implant alone (1g); D5: P4 removal, 0.5 mg estradiol cypionate [EC], 0.526 mg cloprostenol [PGF], and 300 IU equine chorionic gonadotropin [eCG]; D7: 8.4 μg buserelin acetate [GnRH]) was compared to a 9d protocol initiated with EB (EB-9d; D0: 2 mg EB + P4; D9: P4 removal + EC + PGF + eCG), and to a 7d GnRH protocol (G-7d; D0: 16.8 μg GnRH + P4; D6: PGF + eCG; D7: P4 removal + PGF; D9: GnRH). Exp 2 (n = 55 cows) compared G-7d and EB-7d protocols (similar to EB-9d, but D9 treatments were done on D7). Exp 3 (n = 64 heifers) compared EB-7d, G-7d, and P-5d protocols. For all experiments, daily ovarian ultrasonography was done from D0 until 4d after implant withdrawal and blood samples were collected at D0 and first PGF. Follicle dynamics were determined for each individual animal, analyzed within individual experiments, and afterwards combined to determine overall effects of treatments. The protocol that began with GnRH, G-7d, had greater ovulation rate after D0 with subsequently greater number of CL and circulating P4 at time of PGF (52.8%, 1.0 ± 0.1 CL, 4.0 ± 0.4 ng/mL) than for EB protocols (12.1%, 0.4 ± 0.05 CL, 2.0 ± 0.2 ng/mL), or P-5d (2.5%, 0.6 ± 0.09 CL, 2.6 ± 0.3 ng/mL). The G-7d and EB protocols had synchronized follicle wave emergence in 92.1% of animals but with distinct patterns. For the G-7d group, wave emergence occurred earlier in ovulating than non-ovulating animals (1.4 ± 0.2 d vs 2.5 ± 0.4 d). By comparison, most animals in EB-7d or EB-9d (80.3%) displayed atresia of the dominant follicle, followed by wave emergence 2–3 d after EB treatment. In contrast, P-5d protocol synchronized wave emergence in only 30.0% of cows. Nevertheless, no differences among treatments were detected for ovulation at end of the protocol (85.7%). In conclusion, the P-5d protocol did not synchronize follicle wave emergence but produced similar final ovulation, whereas, GnRH and EB protocols had follicle dynamics synchronized by distinct mechanisms that produced differences in CL number and P4 at the time of PGF treatment but similar final ovulation. Based on ovarian function, each of these synchronization methods are promising for use in FTAI, although fertility still needs to be evaluated.