Skip to main content
ARS Home » Plains Area » Miles City, Montana » Livestock and Range Research Laboratory » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #221429
Title: Effects of Flunixin Meglumine on Pregnancy Establishment in Beef Cattle

Author
item Geary, Thomas
item ANSOTEGUI, R - MONTANA STATE UNIV
item Roberts, Andrew
item Waterman, Richard
item Macneil, Michael
item Grings, Elaine
item THOMPSON, D - USDA-APHIS-VS BILLINGS MT
item LIPSEY, R - AM SIMMENTAL ASSOCIATION

Submitted to: Journal of Animal Science Supplement
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 5/15/2005
Publication Date: 6/15/2005
Citation: Geary, T.W., Ansotegui, R.P., Roberts, A.J., Waterman, R.C., Macneil, M.D., Grings, E.E., Thompson, D.B., Lipsey, R.J. 2005. Effects of Flunixin Meglumine on Pregnancy Establishment in Beef Cattle. Journal of Animal Science Supplement 83(Suppl. 2):125 (#101).

Interpretive Summary: same as abstract

Technical Abstract: Our objective was to determine effects of a single injection of the prostaglandin inhibitor Flunixin Meglumine (FM; 1.1 mg/kg BW, i.m.) approximately 13 d after AI on pregnancy establishment. Three experiments were conducted using estrus-synchronized heifers and cows. Technicians and AI sires were equally represented across treatments within locations and experiments. Bulls were introduced following FM treatment (approximately 13 d after AI). Pregnancy to AI was diagnosed 28 to 50 d after AI using ultrasonography. In Exp 1, beef heifers (n = 1,221) were divided within five locations to receive FM or no further treatment (Control). At insemination, heifers were divided into two similar pastures or pens and approximately 13 d later, one group of heifers within each location was worked through an animal handling facility to administer FM treatment. Location had no effect (P > 0.10) on AI pregnancy rates, so data were pooled. Pregnancy rates to AI were reduced (P < 0.025) among heifers receiving FM (65%) compared to control heifers (71%). In Exp 2, cows (n = 719) were assigned within two locations to receive FM or no further treatment (Control) 13 d after AI. At insemination, Control and FM cows were divided into separate pastures and only FM cows were handled after AI. Pregnancy rates differed by location (P < 0.01), but there was no location by treatment interaction (P > 0.10) so data were pooled. Pregnancy rates to AI did not differ (P > 0.10) between FM (57%) and Control cows (59%). In Exp 3, heifers (n = 247) and cows (n = 335) from one location were assigned at AI to receive FM or Control treatment approximately 13 d later. In Exp. 3, all cows and heifers were handled through a working facility but only half of each age group received FM treatment. Pregnancy rates to AI between FM (45%) and Control cows (42%) or FM (56%) and Control (55%) heifers were not different (P > 0.10). We conclude FM administration at the current dosage of 1.1 mg/kg BW approximately 13 d after AI did not improve pregnancy establishment in beef cows and heifers and that the additional stress of handling heifers at this time may decrease pregnancy establishment.