Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T23:24:41.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of a norgestomet implant to reduce embryonic loss and resynchronise oestrus in dairy heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

D N Logue ,
J A Bax ,
J P Renton  and
J McNally
D N Logue
Affiliation:
Dairy Herd Health Unit, SAC Vet Services, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW
J A Bax
Affiliation:
SAC Auchincruive, Mid Park, Bankend Road, Dumfries DG1 4SZ
J P Renton
Affiliation:
Glasgow University Veterinary School, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH
J McNally
Affiliation:
Intervet UK Ltd, Cambridge CB4 4EP
Get access

Extract

In a recent study of the efficacy of two methods of oestrous synchronisation in dairy heifers, progesterone profiles and ultrasound results showed that late embryonic/early foetal loss had a small but nevertheless important effect upon pregnancy rates (Logue & others 1991). Since some preliminary results were available which showed that the use of a 3 mg norgestomet ear implant alone, rather than in combination with a 3 mg norgestomet and 5 mg oestradiol valerate injection (Crestar Intervet UK Ltd), enhanced pregnancy rates in beef heifers (Favero & others 1989) and the technique was being used in Embryo transfer (ET) recipients (Broadbent pers com) it was felt that a further investigation of the technique was merited.

Type
Dairy Production
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1992 , March 1992 , pp. 119
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

Faviro, R J, Faulkner, D B, Parrett, D F & Kesler, D J (1990). Intervet Tnternal report.Google Scholar
Logue, D N, Salaheddlne, M & Renton, J P (1991). Veterinary Record 129, 171–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar