synchronization protocols for heifersappliedreprostrategies.com/2008/pdfs/02e_patterson.pdfestrus...
Post on 13-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Estrus Synchronization Protocols for HeifersEstrus Synchronization Protocols for Heifers
Division of Animal SciencesUniversity of Missouri
D.J. Patterson, D.C. Busch, N.R. Leitman, D.J. Wilson, D.A. Mallory, and M.F. Smith
Effective Estrus Synchronization Programs for Beef Cattle
Facilitate AI & ETReduce time required to detect estrusCycling females conceive earlier in the breeding periodInduce cyclicity in peripubertal heifers and anestrous postpartum cows
Objective: Development of highly effective & economical estrus synchronization programs
Peripubertal heifersPostpartum cows
Anestrus and cyclingExcellent pregnancy ratesReduced AI period and/or fixed-time AI
Products Currently AvailableCurrently Available
ProstglandinLutalyse, Estrumate, ProstaMate, In Synch, EstroPlan
GnRHCystorelin, Factrel, Fertagyl, OvaCyst
ProgestinsMGACIDR
MGAMGA--Based Protocols for Heifers . . .Based Protocols for Heifers . . .
ProgesteronePregn-4-ene-3, 20-dioneProgesteroneProgesteronePregn-4-ene-3, 20-dione
OOCC
OO
CH3 CH3
CH3 CH3
CH3 CH3
MGA(melengestrol acetate)
6-methyl-17-alpha-acetoxy-16-methylene-pregn-4, 6-diene-3, 20-dione
MGAMGA(melengestrol acetate)
6-methyl-17-alpha-acetoxy-16-methylene-pregn-4, 6-diene-3, 20-dione
CC
OO
CH3 CH3
OOCH3 CH3 CH3
CH3
CH3 CH3
CH3 CH3
OO
OOCC
CH2 CH2
What We Know About MGA . . . What We Know About MGA . . .
Successfully induces puberty in beef heifers (Imwalle et al., 1998)
Prevents expression of behavioral estrus (Zimbelman and Smith, 1966; Imwalle et al., 2002)
Blocks the preovulatory surge of LH (Imwalle et al., 2002)
Blocks ovulation (Zimbelman and Smith, 1966; Imwalle et al., 2002)
MGA (14 days)
11 14 16 20 14 16 20 31 33 36 31 33 36
PGPG
Synchronizedestrus
Treatment days
Estrus
Brown et al., 1988
MGA (14 days)Natural service
Treatment days
1 14 16 20 24
Estrus
MGA prior to Natural Service or MGA-PG prior to AI
Breeding program
No. heifers
Estrous response
Synchronized conception
rate
Synchronized pregnancy
rate
Natural service 1749 --- --- 1151/1749
66%
AI 4245 3354/4245 79%
2414/3354 72%
2414/4245 57%
MGA-PG(AI)
MGA(Natural service)
% ofherd inestrus
MGA-PG
1414--17 d versus 1417 d versus 14--19 d?19 d?
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
MGA-PG (d 17)MGA-PG (d 19)
Lamb et al., 2000Hour after PG
No.
of h
eife
rs in
sem
inat
ed
MGA-PG14-17 d vs. 14-19 d
MGA-PG 14-19 d
Increased estrous responseIncreased estrous responseEqual fertilityEqual fertilityImproved synchronyImproved synchrony
(Deutscher et al., 2000; Lamb et al., 2000)
Treatment days
MGA (14 days)
1 14 26 33
PG
MGA (14 days)
1 14 26 33
PGGnRH
Wood et al., 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Day of treatment
Folli
cle
diam
eter
(mm
)
ESTRUS
PG
Wood et al., 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Day of treatment
Folli
cle
diam
eter
(mm
)
ESTRUS
PGGnRH
Wood et al., 2001
When to Add GnRH When to Add GnRH to an MGAto an MGA--PG Protocol for HeifersPG Protocol for HeifersConsideration of . . . .
AgeWeight Reproductive tract score (RTS)
Pubertal status
Wood et al., 2000; Kojima et al., 2001
Considerations Regarding Long-term MGA Feeding
Treatment days
1 87 104 115
MGA (87 days)PGPG
1 14 31 42
MGA (14 days)
PG PG
Experimental DesignExperimental DesignExperimental Design
Patterson et al., 1992
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100E
stru
s Res
pons
e (%
)
Short-term MGA Long-term MGA
1st injection 2nd injection Total
24/31 77 %
16/30 53 %
4/7 57 %
10/14 71 %
28/31 90 %
26/30 87 %
Estrous ResponseEstrous ResponseEstrous Response
Treatment Normal Abnormal
Short-term MGA31/31 100 %
Long-term MGA
Ovarian MorphologyOvarian MorphologyOvarian Morphology
19/30 63 %
0/31 0 %*
11/30 37 %*
Abnormal = Luteinized follicular cyst * P < 0.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100C
once
ptio
n R
ate
(%)
1st injection 2nd injection Total
18/24 75 %
12/16 75 %
3/4 75 %
6/10 60 %
21/28 75 %
18/26 69 %
Conception RateConception RateConception Rate
Short-term MGA Long-term MGA
Pregnancy Rate
0
10
20
30
4050
60
70
80
90
100Pr
egna
ncy
Rat
e (%
)
Short-term MGA Long-term MGA
28/31 90 %
27/30 90 %
CIDRCIDR--Based Protocols for HeifersBased Protocols for Heifers
Efficacy of the CIDR Insert and PG for Synchronizing Estrus in Beef Heifers
Lucy et al., 2001
Experimental treatments (Lucy et al., 2001)
Untreated controlSingle injection of PGCIDR + PG
CIDR inserted for 7 daysPG administered on day 6
Estrous Response Lucy et al., 2001
Control 33/251 (13%)
PG67/252 (27%)
CIDR + PG143/221 (65%)
010
2030
4050
6070
Estrousresponse
(%)
Control
PG
CIDR +PG
AI Pregnancy Rates Lucy et al., 2001
Control 19/251 (8%)
PG35/252 (14%)
CIDR + PG86/221 (39%)
05
10152025303540
AIpregnancyrates (%)
Control
PG
CIDR +PG
Lucy et al., 2001Lucy et al., 2001
CIDR successfully induced cylicity in prepubertal heifers
CIDR + PG improved estrous response over control and PG treated contemporaries
CIDR + PG improved pregnancy rates during the synchronized period over control and PG treated contemporaries
0 6 7 14
CIDR-PG Protocol
Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AICIDR
PG
CIDR Insertion
CIDR Removal
0 7 14Treatment days
CIDR Insertion
CIDR
CIDR Removal & PG
Heat detect and AIHeat detect and AI
DeJarnette et al., unpublished data
1212 2424 3636 4848 6060 7272 8484 9696 108108 120120Hours after CIDR removal
% o
f hei
fers
in e
stru
s CIDRCIDR--PG day 6 PG day 6
CIDRCIDR--PG day 7 PG day 7
00
1010
2020
3030
4040
PG injection on day 6 or 7 altered the timing of estrus after CIDR removal
NoNoresponseresponse
CIDR-PG Protocol Estrous Response
DeJarnette et al., unpublished data
The MultiThe Multi--State CIDR TrialState CIDR Trial
Lamb et al., 2006
0 7 ……………………..84 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …....... 60 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …............................84h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …..........60 h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI
Lamb et al., 2006
FTAI FTAI
0 7 ……………………..84 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …....... 60 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …............................84h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …..........60 h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI
Lamb et al., 2006
Estrus 233/383 61%
FTAI 50/133 37%
AI 282/516 55%
Estrus 236/372 63%
FTAI 51/131 39%
AI 289/503 57%
0 7 ……………………..84 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …....... 60 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …............................84h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …..........60 h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI
Lamb et al., 2006
FTAI 259/525 49% FTAI 282/531 53%
0 7 ……………………..84 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …....... 60 h
CIDR (7 d)
PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …............................84h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
0 7 …..........60 h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
Detect estrus & AI Detect estrus & AI
Lamb et al., 2006
Estrus 233/383 61%
FTAI 50/133 37%
AI 282/516 55%
FTAI 259/525 49%
Estrus 236/372 63%
FTAI 51/131 39%
AI 289/503 57%
FTAI 282/531 53%
MultiMulti--state CIDR Trialstate CIDR Trial
GnRH at CIDR insertion did not improve pregnancy rates after FTAI
GnRH at CIDR insertion did not alter the percentage of heifers detected in estrus or the distribution of estrus after PG
A combination of detecting estrus and AI before clean-up AI enhanced pregnancy rates over FTAI
Lamb et al., 2006
How do MGAHow do MGA-- and CIDRand CIDR--based based protocols compare in heifers?protocols compare in heifers?
Observations with MGAObservations with MGA--based programs based programs in yearling beef heifers . . .in yearling beef heifers . . .
• Increasing number of reports that pregnancy rates resulting from MGA-based estrus synchronization protocols are declining in yearling age heifers . . . . . . .
– Higher rates of estrous cyclicity– Heavier weight and conditioned heifers
1 14 26 33
MGA (14 days)
1 14 23 30Treatment day
.. .. 12 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..
.. .. 9 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..
GnRH
GnRH
PG
PG
Experimental ProtocolsExperimental Protocols
Kojima et al., 2004
CIDR (14 days)
MGA Select
14-d CIDR
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Days after PG
% o
f Hei
fers
Inse
min
ated
Summary for Timing of AISummary for Timing of AI
No treatment x location effect (P > 0.10); therefore, datawere pooled
Distribution of AI dates were different between MGA- andCIDR-treated heifers (P < 0.02)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80CIDR (n = 177)
MGA (n = 175)
0% 1%
10% 15%
69%
53%
5%10% 16%
21%PG
Kojima et al., 2004
112/177 (63 %)a
83/175 (47 %)b
195/352 (55 %)
AI Pregnancy
a, b P = 0.01+ 16 %
CIDR
MGA
Total
154/177 (87 %)
147/175 (84 %)
301/352 (86 %)
Estrous Response
Estrous Response, AI Pregnancy, and Final Estrous Response, AI Pregnancy, and Final Pregnancy RatesPregnancy Rates
+ 3 %Diff.
164/177 (93 %)
159/175 (91 %)
323/352 (92 %)
Final Pregnancy
+ 2 %Kojima et al., 2004
1414--day CIDR vs MGA Selectday CIDR vs MGA Select
No difference in estrous response during the synchronized period
Improved synchrony of estrus
Improved conception & pregnancy rates during the synchronized period
No difference in final pregnancy rate at the end of the breeding period
Kojima et al., 2004
CIDRCIDR--PG versus MGAPG versus MGA--PGPG
Tauck et al., 2007
Treatment days
MGA (14 days)
0 14
19 days
33
PG
0 14 31
PGCIDR (14 days) 17 days
Tauck et al., 2007
CIDRCIDR--PG versus MGAPG versus MGA--PGPG
Number of heifersInseminated 12 hr after estrus Preg rate (heat detection)Preg rate (FTAI @72 after PGOverall AI preg rate
CIDR MGA
77 79
91% 67%67% 71%25% 54%
62% 66%
Tauck et al., 2007
How do longHow do long--term and shortterm and short--term term CIDRCIDR--based protocols compare in based protocols compare in
heifers?heifers?
Response to GnRH in estrous cycling beef heifers Response to GnRH in estrous cycling beef heifers based on day of the estrous cycle GnRH was based on day of the estrous cycle GnRH was
administeredadministered
Day of treatment
1st GnRH (no. & % responding)
Day 2 0/14 0%
Day 5 12/13 92%
Day 10 4/13 31%
Day 15 8/13 62%
Day 18 2/10 20%
Atkins et al., 2005
Response to GnRH in beef heifers synchronized with Response to GnRH in beef heifers synchronized with the 14the 14--day CIDR based on day of the estrous cycle day CIDR based on day of the estrous cycle
GnRH was administeredGnRH was administered
Day of the cycle GnRH was administered
No. & % responding
Day 3 1/2 50%Day 4 0/1 0%Day 5 5/5 100%Day 6 7/7 100%Day 7 23/27 85%Day 8 24/27 89%
Unknown 8/10 80%
Schafer et al., 2006
Until recently, there have been no comprehensive studies in estrous cycling
and pre/peripubertal beef heifers comparing the long-term CIDR protocol
(CIDR Select) and short-term CIDR- based protocols.
COCO--Synch + CIDR w/ TAI at 54h vsSynch + CIDR w/ TAI at 54h vs CIDR Select w/ TAI at 72hCIDR Select w/ TAI at 72h
0 7 …... 54h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
0 14 23 30.........72h
.. .. 9 days .. .. .. .. 7 days .. ..
GnRH PGCIDR (14 days)
CIDR SelectCIDR Select
GnRH
AI
Treatment day
COCO--Synch + CIDRSynch + CIDR
Busch et al., 2007
54/87 (62%)x
40/86 (47%)y
94/173 (54%)
Estrous cycling
+ 15 %
CIDR Select
CO-Synch + CIDR
Total
AI pregnancyAI pregnancy
Diff.
67/108 (62%)x
51/109 (47%)y
118/217 (54%)
Combined
+ 15 %x,y P= 0.02
13/21 (62%)
11/23 (48%)
24/44 (55%)
Pre/peri- pubertal
+ 14 %x,y P= 0.03
Fixed-time AI pregnancy rate
Busch et al., 2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-89-1011
-1213-1
415-1617-1
819-2021-2
223-24 NR
Interval after FTAI, d
Estru
s, %
CIDR Select (n=41)CO-Synch+CIDR (n=58)
Distribution of repeat estrus following TAI at all locations
Busch et al., 2007
Synchrony of estrus
CIDR Select
CO-Synch + CIDR
28/108 (26%)
42/109 (39%)
Observed in estrus
Return to estrus after TAIReturn to estrus after TAI
+ 13 %Diff.P= 0.05
20.2 ± 0.7 d
Mean interval to
estrus
P = 0.26
19.2 ± 0.6 d
(mean ± SE) (mean ± SD)
20.2 ± 3.0 d
19.2 ± 4.3 d
F-test P < 0.05
Busch et al., 2007
ConclusionConclusion
Synchronizing replacement beef heifers with the CIDR Select protocol resulted in:Significantly higher TAI pregnancy rates (P = 0.02)Reduced variance associated with the interval from TAI to subsequent return to estrus (P < 0.05)
Busch et al., 2007
CIDR Select with heat detection resultsCIDR Select with heat detection resultsHerd No. Pregnant Total No. Percentage
1 (F02) 50 79 63%
2 (S03) 27 42 64%
3 (S03) 35 56 63%
4 (S04) 26 48 54%
5 (S04) 49 79 62%
6 (S04) 38 50 76%
7 (F04) 31 46 67%
8 (F04) 24 44 55%
9 (F04) 29 41 71%
10 (S05) 42 81 52%
11 (S05) 20 39 51%
12 (S05) 9 16 56%
13 (S05) 10 16 63%
14 (S05) 8 10 80%
15 (S05) 41 81 51%
16 (F05) 25 33 76%
17 (F05) 12 18 67%
18 (F05) 23 51 45%
Totals 499 830 60%
CIDR Select with Heat Detection830 Total Females at 18 Locations
Average % Synchronized Pregnancy = 60%
CIDR Select with TAI at 72 hrs resultsCIDR Select with TAI at 72 hrs resultsHerd No. Pregnant Total No. Percentage
1 (F04) 71 117 61%
2 (S05) 44 67 66%
3 (S05) 7 9 78%
4 (S05) 42 82 51%
5 (F05) 58 85 68%
6 (F05) 25 48 52%
7 (F05) 8 12 67%
8 (F05) 52 77 68%
8 (F05) 31 58 53%
8 (F05)* 7 27 26%
9 (F05) 50 81 62%
10 (S06) 23 39 59%
11 (S06) 44 69 64%
12 (S06) 32 50 64%
13 (S06) 24 32 75%
Totals 518 853 61%
CIDR Select with Timed AI @ 72 hrs.853 Total Females at 13 Locations
Average % Synchronized Pregnancy = 61%
Results from Leitman et al. (2008) were analyzed to compare the CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR protocols among mixed groups of estrous cycling and prepubertal beef heifers.
Treatments
CIDRGnRH
0 14 23 30
… 9 days … … 7 days …
CIDR Select
CIDR
GnRH PG
0 7
Select Synch + CIDR
PG
Leitman et al., 2008
Objectives
Characterize Follicular dynamics the day preceding and the day of GnRHResponse to GnRHEstrus distribution after CIDR removal and PGTime of ovulation following each synchronization protocol
Leitman et al., 2008
Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers
CIDR Select
Select Synch + CIDR
Response to GnRH
21/26
81%*9/23
39%*
Estrous response
23/26
88%19/23
83%*P<0.01
Leitman et al., 2008
Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers
Variance for interval to estrus differed between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR
CIDR Select
Select Synch + CIDR
Interval from PG to estrus
52 ± 1.4h42–70h (28h)
47 ± 3.9h29–105h (76h)
Variance from PG to estrus
45.6* 285.6*
*P<0.001Leitman et al., 2008
Prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers
Variance for interval to ovulation differed between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR
CIDR Select
Select Synch + CIDR
Interval from PG to ovulation
82 ± 1.6h68–100h (32h)
75 ± 4.3h55–131h (76h)
Variance from PG to ovulation
51.3* 331.2*
*P<0.001Leitman et al., 2008
Comparison of variances within treatment
Cycling Prepubertal P-valueCIDR Select
Estrus 38.9 61.2 P>0.10
Ovulation 35.3 79.3 P>0.10
Select Synch + CIDR
Estrus 390.8 102.2 P<0.06
Ovulation 435.4* 99.8* *P<0.05
Leitman et al., 2008
Summary
The CIDR Select protocol improved synchrony of estrus and ovulation compared with Select Synch + CIDR.
There was more variance associated with the interval from PG to estrus (P<0.06) and ovulation (P<0.05) between prepubertal and estrous cycling heifers synchronized with the Select Synch + CIDR protocol compared to CIDR Select.
Leitman et al., 2008
Summary
Differences in variances for interval to estrus and ovulation between CIDR Select and Select Synch + CIDR treated groups help to explain differences in pregnancy rates resulting from fixed-time AI among CIDR Select and CO-Synch treated heifers.
Leitman et al., 2008
Management Considerations Related to Estrus Synchronization
and Fixed-Time AI
Choosing a progestinChoosing a progestin--based protocolbased protocol
The feeding of MGA is specifically approved for estrus synchronization in heifers only.
Use of MGA as part of any estrus synchronization protocol in beef cows constitutes an extralabel use of medicated feed that is prohibited by the Animal Medicinal Drug Use and Clarification Act.
Producers that have used MGA to synchronize cows in the past should transition to CIDR to comply with FDA regulations concerning extralabel use of medicated feeds.
CurrentlyCurrently…………..
Success rates using fixed-time AI in postpartum beef cows warrant an organized effort to increase application and successful use.
0 7 …... 66 h
CIDR (7 d)
GnRH PG
GnRH
AI
COCO--SynchSynch + CIDR+ CIDR
CO-Synch + CIDR with fixed-time AI @ 66 hrs after PG and CIDR removal
No. Herds
No. Cows
AI Preg. Rate (%)
Range
AI Preg. Rate (%)
Mean
Fixed- time AI results
63 6437 38-86%*4009/6437
62%
*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.
*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.*Only 2 of the 63 herds realized pregnancy rates < 50% resulting from fixed-time AI.
Do we know what to expect at calving Do we know what to expect at calving from cows that conceive on the same from cows that conceive on the same
day to the same sire?day to the same sire?
02468
101214161820
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 402468
101214161820
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 802468
101214161820
-11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
02468
101214161820
-12 -8 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 1502468
101214161820
-13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 902468
101214161820
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Location 1; Sire A (Angus) BW EPD -0.3; CED = +11 Range 271-290 Mean = 281
Location 1; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 275-292 Mean = 281
Location 1; Sire C (Angus) BW EPD -1.1; CED = +11 Range 274-287 Mean = 281
Location 2; Sire D (Red Angus) BW EPD +2.3; CED = -2 Range 273-300 Mean = 283
Location 3; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 272-294 Mean = 283
Location 4; Sire B (Angus) BW EPD +3.5; CED = +6 Range 275-294 Mean = 284
Consider the impact of estrus synchronization on calving distribution………
Opportunities for increasing profits lie in managing females from the later calving intervals forward toward the first and second calving intervals.
High production herds see 61% of the calves born by day 21, 85% by day 42 and 94% by day 63.
Hughes, 2005
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
%
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77Day of calving season
4 years; 11 herds; 1511 calves
Calving distribution for entire calving season
Thompson (04-07), FSRC (05, 07); Greenley (05-07); MFA (06-07)Cumulative Calf % by:
day 15 = 65%
day 21 = 70%
day 30 = 82%
day 42 = 93%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 16 31 46Day of calving season
Perc
enta
ge
Natural Service (3 years; n = 526) Estrus Detection & AI (5 years; n = 1040)Fixed-time AI (4 years; n = 766)
Cumulative calf crops (MU Thompson Farm) for the first 46 days over 12 calving seasons
• Improvements in methods to synchronize estrus create the opportunity to significantly expand the use of AI in the U.S. cowherd . . . . . . .
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Faculty, Students, & StaffFaculty, Students, & Staff
Faculty Regional Extension Livestock SpecialistsMike Smith Roger Eakins Matthew Lucy Al KennettMark Ellersieck Chris Zumbrunnen
Students MU Farms & CentersJon Bader David McAtee Nicole Leitman Jon SchrefflerDaniel Mallory Randall SmootDaniel Schafer Dave DavisJacob Stegner Dennis JacobsGeorge PerryDallas WilsonStacey Wood (Follis)
Research Specialists & Postdoctoral FellowsDan BuschNaoto (Freddie) Kojima
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Financial SupportFinancial Support
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Product supportPfizerMerialIVX
Semen SupportABS Global
Acclerated GeneticsGenex
Select Sires, Inc.
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Cooperators
4-M Ranch
John Ranch
Jim Wallis Farms
Circle A Angus Ranch
Jim Clement, DVM
MFA, Inc.
SEMO University
MU Farms & Centers
Thompson Farm
Greenley Center
FSRC
top related