Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone at initiation of the 5-d timed artificial insemination (AI) program and timing of induction of ovulation relative to AI on ovarian dynamics and fertility of dairy heifers

Two experiments evaluated the effects of the first GnRH injection of the 5-d timed artificial insemination (AI) program on ovarian responses and pregnancy per AT (P/AI), and the effect of timing of the final GnRH to induce ovulation relative to AT on P/AI. In experiment 1, 605 Holstein heifers were synchronized for their second insemination and assigned randomly to receive GnRH on study d 0 (n = 298) or to remain as untreated controls (n = 307). Ovaries were scanned on study d 0 and 5. All heifers received a controlled internal drug-release (CIDR) insert containing progesterone on d 0, a single injection of PGF(2 alpha),, and removal of the CIDR on d 5, and GnRH concurrent with timed AT on d 8. Blood was analyzed for progesterone at AI. Pregnancy was diagnosed on d 32 and 60 after AI. Ovulation on study d 0 was greater for GnRH than control (35.4 vs. 10.6%). Presence of a new corpus luteum (CL) at PGF(2 alpha),, injection was greater for GnRH than for control (43.1 vs. 20.8%), although the proportion of heifers with a CL at PGF(2 alpha) did not differ between treatments and averaged 87.1%. Progesterone on the day of AT was greater for GaRH than control (0.50 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.28 +/- 0.07 ng/mL). The proportion of heifers at AI with progesterone <0.5 ng/mL was less for GURH than for control (73.8 vs. 88.2%). The proportion of heifers in estrus at AI did not differ between treatments and averaged 66.8%. Pregnancy per AI was not affected by treatment at d 32 or 60 (GnRH = 52.5 and 49.8% vs. control = 54.1 and 50.0%), and pregnancy loss averaged 6.0%. Responses to GnRH were not influenced by ovarian status on study d 0. In experiment 2, 1,295 heifers were synchronized for their first insemination and assigned randomly to receive a CIDR on d 0, PGF(2 alpha) and removal of the CIDR on d 5, and either GnRH 56 h after PGF(2 alpha) and AI 16 h later (OVS56, n = 644) or GnRH concurrent with AI 72 h after PGF(2 alpha) (COS72; n = 651). Estrus at AI was greater for COS72 than for OVS56 (61.4 vs. 47.5). Treatment did not affect P/AI on d 32 in heifers displaying signs of estrus at AI, but COS72 improved P/AI compared with OVS56 (55.0 vs. 47.6%) in those not in estrus at AI. Similarly, P/AI on d 60 did not differ between treatments for heifers displaying estrus, but COS72 improved P/AI compared with OVS56 (53.0 vs. 44.7%) in those not in estrus at AI. Administration of GnRH on the first day of the 5-d timed AI program resulted in low ovulation rate and no improvement in P/AI when heifers received a single PGF(2 alpha) injection 5 d later. Moreover, extending the proestrus by delaying the finAI GnRH from 56 to 72 h concurrent with AI benefited fertility of dairy heifers that did not display signs of estrus at insemination following the 5-d timed AI protocol.

Wildlife damage, insurance/compensation for farmers and conservation: Sri Lankan elephants as a case

The interference with agriculture has been recognised as the main cause for the current conflict between farmers and wild elephants in Sri Lanka, as elsewhere in the Asian elephant range. Thus compensating farmers for the damages caused by elephants is essential, if this endangered species is to survive in the long run. This paper explores the practicality of establishing an improved publicly funded insurance/compensation scheme to recompense farmers for the elephant damages. It does so by analysing results from two contingent valuation surveys undertaken in Sri Lanka. We find that possible public support of farmers plus urban dwellers significantly exceeds the financial requirement of the insurance scheme proposed in this study for perpetuity. The article also shows that it is often inappropriate from an economic viewpoint to analyse crop insurance as if it only involves the insurance of a private good because important positive externalities can arise from ‘crop’ damages by wildlife, e.g. elephants. The use of agricultural land by some species is essential for their long-term survival and this is often positively valued by the community as a whole.