The livestock industry has hit the country groundbreaking year with numerous issues. The economy and futuristic availability for livestock are all in doubt, which has the potential to diminish market prices. Having greater insight into optimal estrus synchronization protocol is critical for animal management capabilities. The utilization of controlled internal drug release (CIDR) to maximize the number of cattle by controlling ovarian function has benefited the population in many ways. Recent research indicates that herbal supplementation is highly promising and could be a viable new practice for reproductive efficiency. Thus, the study was conducted to compare the estrus signs and pregnancy rate derived from CIDR and modified herbs groups. A total of six Charolais Brahman cross cattle were subjected to two estrus synchronization protocols. Group A (CIDR, n=3) received Eazi-Breed CIDR contained 1.38 g of progesterone inserted for seven days and preceded by a 10 ml injection of Lutalyse prior to CIDR withdrawal, whereas Group B (Modified herbs, n=3) herbal fed to the cattle for three days continuously. Estrus signs were monitored following treatment removal by visual observation for 45 minutes at 0700h, 0900h, 1100h, 1300h, 1500h, 1700h, 1900h and 2100h. Cattle were artificially inseminated after 12 hours of estrus onset and pregnancy diagnosis was performed between days 35 and 40 of gestation. The study revealed that the occurrence of estrus signs was higher in CIDR 88.89% than in modified herbs 77.79%. Plus, the estrus signs were the highest in the evening at 61.11% for CIDR and modified herbs compared to morning (38.89% vs 33.33, respectively) and night (55.55% vs 50%, respectively). Pregnancy diagnosis with PregnaDrop test kit found that both groups had a similar pregnancy rate of 100%. Lastly, the study demonstrates that the CIDR is the most efficient tool for eliciting estrus, while herbal supplement offers a novel approach for effective synchronization with high fertility.

1.
Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia, Malaysia Perangkaan Ternakan (
2019
).
2.
Z. A.
Mohamed
,
A.
Hosseini
and
N.H.
Kamarulzaman
,
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Hum.
21
,
1
16
(
2013
).
3.
F. A. C.
Muhammad
,
Ç.
Armağan
and
H.
Armağan
,
Turkish J. Vet. Anim. Sci.
41
,
692
697
(
2017
).
4.
X.
Chen
,
F.
Ge
,
J.
Liu
,
S.
Bao
,
Y.
Chen
,
D.
Li
,
Y.
Li
,
T.
Huang
,
X.
Chen
,
Q.
Zhu
,
Q.
Lian
and
R. S.
Ge
,
Front. pharmacol.
9
,
1
13
(
2018
).
5.
N.
Ytlmaz
,
B.
Seven
,
H.
Timur
,
A.
Yorganct
,
H.A.
inal
,
M.N.
Kalem
,
Z.
Kalem
,
Ö.
Han
and
B.
Bilezikçi
,
J. Chin. Med. Assoc.
81
,
905
911
(
2018
).
6.
M.S. Nur
Nazhiifah Amiirah
,
A.B.
Khairatun Nisaa’
and
R.K. Raja Ili
Airina
,
IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
596
(
2020
).
7.
M.
Villaquirán
,
R.
Gipson
,
R.
Merkel
,
A.
Goetsch
and
T.
Sahlu
, Langston University, Agriculture Research and Cooperative Extension
127
133
(
2018
).
8.
National Research Council (NRC), National Academies Press (
2001
).
9.
D. R.
Eborn
,
E.E.
Blair
and
D.M.
Grieger
,
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
1
32
34
(
2001
).
10.
J.E.
Romano
and
M.L.
Fahning
,
Ital. J. Anim. Sci.
12
,
390
394
(
2013
).
11.
I.
Sofienaz
,
A.
Fuad
,
K.
Mat
,
N. D.
Rusli
and
H. C.
Harun
,
Journal of Tropical Resources and Sustainable Science
6
,
80
87
(
2018
).
12.
J. F.
Fonseca
,
C. A. A.
Torres
,
E. P.
Costa
,
V. V.
Maffili
,
G. R.
Carvalho
,
N. G.
Alves
and
M. A.
Rubert
,
Anim. Reprod.
2
,
54
59
(
2005
).
13.
A. R.
Madkar
,
S. S.
Lathwal
,
T. K.
Mohanty
,
M.
Abdullah
and
S.
Kumar
,
Indian Vet. J. Sci.
92
,
60
61
(
2015
).
14.
S. S
Layek
,
T. K.
Mohanty
,
A.
Kumaresan
,
K.
Behera
and
S.
Chand
,
Anim. Reprod. Sci.
129
,
140
145
(
2011
).
15.
R.
Firk
,
E.
Stamer
,
W.
Junge
and
J.
Krieter
,
Livest. Prod. Sci.
75
,
219
232
(
2002
).
16.
M.
Diskin
and
J.
Sreenan
,
Reprod. Nutr. Dev. in EDP Sciences
40
,
481
491
(
2000
).
17.
M. L.
O’Connor
, The Pennsylvania State University (
2016
).
18.
R.
Nebel
,
Engormix
(
2012
).
19.
P.
Sood
and
A.S
Nanda
,
Theriogenology
66
1375
1380
(
2006
).
20.
F. J. C. M.
Van Eerdenburg
,
D.
Karthaus
,
M. A. M.
Taverne
,
I.
Mercis
and
O.
Szenci
,
J. Dairy Sci.
85
,
1150
1156
(
2002
).
21.
J.
Roelofs
,
F. J. C. M.
Van Eerdenburg
,
N. M.
Soede
and
B.
Kemp
,
Theriogenology
63
,
1366
1377
(
2005
).
22.
A.
Khaki
,
A. A
Khaki
,
L.
Hajhosseini
,
F.
Golzar
and
N.
Ainehchi
,
Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med.
4
,
1
8
(
2014
).
23.
M. N.
Ahmad
,
G. A.
Yaghi
and
K. G
Ajarma
,
J. Am. Sci.
10
,
264
271
(
2014
).
24.
J. C. M.
Riley
and
H. R.
Behrman
,
Exp. Biol. Med.
198
,
781
791
. (
1991
).
25.
F.
Mossa
,
S. W.
Walsh
,
S. T.
Butler
,
D. P
Berry
,
F.
Carter
,
P.
Lonergan
,
G.W.
Smith
,
J. J.
Ireland
and
A. C. O.
Evans
,
J. Dairy Sci.
95
,
2355
2361
(
2012
).
26.
D. J.
Ambrose
,
J. P.
Kastelic
,
R.
Corbett
,
P. A.
Pitney
,
H. V.
Petit
,
J. A.
Small
and
P.
Zalkovic
,
J. Dairy Sci.
89
,
3066
3074
(
2006
).
27.
J. H.
Van Vliet
and
F. J. C. M.
Van Eerdenburg
,
A
Theriogenology
17
,
485
498
(
1982
).
28.
C. S.
Galina
,
A.
Calderön
and
M.
McCloskey
,
Theriogenology
17
,
485
498
(
1982
).
29.
R. D.
Allrich
,
J. Dairy Sci.
77
,
2738
2744
(
1994
).
30.
F. C.
Gwazdauskas
,
J. Dairy Sci.
68
,
1568
1578
(
1985
).
31.
F. De.
Rensis
,
F.
De
and
R. J.
Scaramuzzi
,
Theriogenology
60
,
1139
1151
(
2003
).
32.
F.
Negussie
,
T.
Kassa
, T. and
M.
Tibbo
,
Trop. Anim. Health. Prod.
34
,
119
328
(
2002
).
33.
M. R.
Jainudeen
,
Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences
,
186
193
(
2002
).
34.
J. S.
Walton
,
L. P.
Veenhuizen
and
G. J.
King
,
J. Dairy Sci.
70
,
1652
1663
(
1987
).
35.
G.
Lopes
,
L.
Vincenti
,
M. C.
Amundson
and
P.M.
Fricke
,
J. Dairy Sci.
95
,
7115
7127
(
2012
).
36.
G. C.
Lamb
,
C. R.
Dahlen
,
K. A.
Vonnahme
,
G. R.
Hansen
,
J. D.
Arseneau
,
G. A.
Perry
,
R. S.
Walker
,
J.
Clement
and
J. D.
Arthington
,
Anim. Reprod. Sci.
108
,
269
278
(
2008
).
37.
G. N.
Purohit
and
P.
Thanvi
,
M.
Pushp
,
M.
Gaur
,
C.
Shekher
,
A.S.A.
Saraswat
and
T.
Gocher
,
J. Pharm. Innov.
8
,
54
62
(
2019
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.