Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers
Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were ra...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer - Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER, 2021, an international journal, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:221 ; year:2020 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV051673819 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV051673819 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626032315.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV051673819 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 530 |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 50.37 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 53.75 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 33.18 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 33.38 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. | ||
| 520 | |a Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Pregnancy |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Fixed time AI |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Beef heifers |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Estrous synchronization |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Artificial insemination |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Split-time AI |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Beumeler, Janey |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ratzburg, Kamron |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kapi, Aliasgar |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kasimanickam, Vanmathy |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kastelic, John |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER |t Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |d 2021 |d an international journal |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV00707350X |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:221 |g year:2020 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 50.37 |j Technische Optik |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 53.75 |j Optische Nachrichtentechnik |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 33.18 |j Optik |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 33.38 |j Quantenoptik |j nichtlineare Optik |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 221 |j 2020 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
r k rk |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
kasimanickamramanathanjorgensenmugakatri:2020----:srursosadrgacpretgsolwnuefpoetrnbsdpitmetosycrnz |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
50.37 53.75 33.18 33.38 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica (DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Kasimanickam, Ramanathan verfasserin aut Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana oth Beumeler, Janey oth Ratzburg, Kamron oth Kapi, Aliasgar oth Kasimanickam, Vanmathy oth Kastelic, John oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer 2021 an international journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00707350X volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 50.37 Technische Optik VZ 53.75 Optische Nachrichtentechnik VZ 33.18 Optik VZ 33.38 Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik VZ AR 221 2020 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica (DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Kasimanickam, Ramanathan verfasserin aut Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana oth Beumeler, Janey oth Ratzburg, Kamron oth Kapi, Aliasgar oth Kasimanickam, Vanmathy oth Kastelic, John oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer 2021 an international journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00707350X volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 50.37 Technische Optik VZ 53.75 Optische Nachrichtentechnik VZ 33.18 Optik VZ 33.38 Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik VZ AR 221 2020 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica (DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Kasimanickam, Ramanathan verfasserin aut Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana oth Beumeler, Janey oth Ratzburg, Kamron oth Kapi, Aliasgar oth Kasimanickam, Vanmathy oth Kastelic, John oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer 2021 an international journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00707350X volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 50.37 Technische Optik VZ 53.75 Optische Nachrichtentechnik VZ 33.18 Optik VZ 33.38 Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik VZ AR 221 2020 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica (DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Kasimanickam, Ramanathan verfasserin aut Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana oth Beumeler, Janey oth Ratzburg, Kamron oth Kapi, Aliasgar oth Kasimanickam, Vanmathy oth Kastelic, John oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer 2021 an international journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00707350X volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 50.37 Technische Optik VZ 53.75 Optische Nachrichtentechnik VZ 33.18 Optik VZ 33.38 Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik VZ AR 221 2020 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica (DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Kasimanickam, Ramanathan verfasserin aut Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana oth Beumeler, Janey oth Ratzburg, Kamron oth Kapi, Aliasgar oth Kasimanickam, Vanmathy oth Kastelic, John oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer 2021 an international journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV00707350X volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 50.37 Technische Optik VZ 53.75 Optische Nachrichtentechnik VZ 33.18 Optik VZ 33.38 Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik VZ AR 221 2020 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:221 year:2020 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Technische Optik Optische Nachrichtentechnik Optik Quantenoptik nichtlineare Optik |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Pregnancy Fixed time AI Beef heifers Estrous synchronization Artificial insemination Split-time AI |
| dewey-raw |
530 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan @@aut@@ Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana @@oth@@ Beumeler, Janey @@oth@@ Ratzburg, Kamron @@oth@@ Kapi, Aliasgar @@oth@@ Kasimanickam, Vanmathy @@oth@@ Kastelic, John @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV00707350X |
| dewey-sort |
3530 |
| id |
ELV051673819 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV051673819</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626032315.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV051673819</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">50.37</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">53.75</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">33.18</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">33.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kasimanickam, Ramanathan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Pregnancy</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fixed time AI</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Beef heifers</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Estrous synchronization</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Artificial insemination</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Split-time AI</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Beumeler, Janey</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ratzburg, Kamron</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kapi, Aliasgar</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kasimanickam, Vanmathy</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kastelic, John</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">an international journal</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV00707350X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:221</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">50.37</subfield><subfield code="j">Technische Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">53.75</subfield><subfield code="j">Optische Nachrichtentechnik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">33.18</subfield><subfield code="j">Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">33.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Quantenoptik</subfield><subfield code="j">nichtlineare Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">221</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |
| spellingShingle |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan ddc 530 bkl 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 Elsevier Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| authorStr |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV00707350X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
530 - Physics 620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 530 bkl 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 Elsevier Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 530 bkl 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 Elsevier Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI |
| topic_browse |
ddc 530 bkl 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 Elsevier Pregnancy Elsevier Fixed time AI Elsevier Beef heifers Elsevier Estrous synchronization Elsevier Artificial insemination Elsevier Split-time AI |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
k j m kjm j b jb k r kr a k ak v k vk j k jk |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV00707350X |
| dewey-tens |
530 - Physics 620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV00707350X |
| title |
Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV051673819 (ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4 |
| title_full |
Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| author_sort |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |
| journal |
Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |
| journalStr |
Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |
| container_volume |
221 |
| class |
530 620 VZ 50.37 bkl 53.75 bkl 33.18 bkl 33.38 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Kasimanickam, Ramanathan |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |
| dewey-full |
530 620 |
| title_sort |
estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| title_auth |
Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| abstract |
Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. |
| abstractGer |
Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana Beumeler, Janey Ratzburg, Kamron Kapi, Aliasgar Kasimanickam, Vanmathy Kastelic, John |
| author2Str |
Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana Beumeler, Janey Ratzburg, Kamron Kapi, Aliasgar Kasimanickam, Vanmathy Kastelic, John |
| ppnlink |
ELV00707350X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:54:36.877Z |
| _version_ |
1803864534551625728 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV051673819</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626032315.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001166.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV051673819</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-4320(20)30416-4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">50.37</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">53.75</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">33.18</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">33.38</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kasimanickam, Ramanathan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Estrous response and pregnancy percentages following use of a progesterone-based, split-time estrous synchronization treatment regimens in beef heifers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mean estrous response rate (%ERR) and pregnancy/AI percentages (%P/AI) were determined after imposing split-time AI (STAI) and fixed time AI (FTAI) following 14-d controlled internal drug release (CIDR)+PGF2α or 5-d Select Synch + CIDR regimens. In Experiment 1, 1152 heifers (five locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d and to 54 + 74- or 64 + 84-h STAI treatment combinations. Estrous detection patches were affixed at PGF2α administration (19 day after- and on day 5 at- CIDR removal for 14- and 5-d regimens, respectively), assessed at 54- or 64-h and again at 74- or 84-h after PGF2α. Heifers determined to be in estrus at respective times were inseminated and non-estrous heifers at 74- or 84-h were given GnRH and inseminated concomitantly. The %ERR between 54 + 74- and 64 + 84-h STAI combinations differed (73.2 % and 78.8 %, respectively; P < 0.05), but %P/AI did not. In Experiment 2, 2014 heifers (eight locations) were randomly assigned to 14- or 5-d regimens and were inseminated split-time (64+84-h combination, similar to Experiment 1) or at fixed time (72- or 56-h after PGF2α for 14- or 5-d regimens, respectively). There were differences (P < 0.01) between STAI and FTAI treatments for %ERR (81.3 % and 64.4 %) and %P/AI (61.2 % and 55.4 %). Estrous synchronization regimen by AI treatment interaction (P < 0.05) showed that the %ERR were 79.8 %, 82.6 %, 66.2 % and 62.8 % and the %P/AI were 58.9 %, 63.4 %, 56.5 % and 56.5 % (for 14-d/STAI, 5-d/STAI, 14-d/FTAI and 5-d/FTAI, respectively). In conclusion, the 5-d CIDR with 64+84-h STAI combination was the most effective because of the greater %P/AI when this regimen was imposed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Pregnancy</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fixed time AI</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Beef heifers</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Estrous synchronization</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Artificial insemination</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Split-time AI</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jorgensen-Muga, Katriana</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Beumeler, Janey</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ratzburg, Kamron</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kapi, Aliasgar</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kasimanickam, Vanmathy</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kastelic, John</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Contuzzi, Nicola ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Statistical modelling and optimization of nanosecond Nd:YAG Q-switched laser scarfing of carbon fiber reinforced polymer</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">an international journal</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV00707350X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:221</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2020.106544</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">50.37</subfield><subfield code="j">Technische Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">53.75</subfield><subfield code="j">Optische Nachrichtentechnik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">33.18</subfield><subfield code="j">Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">33.38</subfield><subfield code="j">Quantenoptik</subfield><subfield code="j">nichtlineare Optik</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">221</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3998337 |