INTERVIEW WITH THE AI EXPERTS
This article was originally printed in the April / May 1999 issue of Tracking The Industry. . .
There are questions worth debating based on opinion and then there are those best left answered by the experienced and knowledgeable experts. As a keenly interested, though rather uninformed deer-farmer, I've had my share of questions about AIing whitetails and went to the source of both knowledge and experience, a University of Saskatchewan research team. Dr. Claire Card, professor of the veterinary college, performed AI procedures on three Saskatchewan deer farms in '98. Murray Woodbury, coordinator of specialized livestock research with the U. of S. lent related expertise.
With AI still early in the experimental stage and first-round results unborn, Dr. Card and Woodbury optimistically cautioned against procedural promises. They used intravaginal sponges to synchronize last fall's does, but are researching other methods for use in '99. While success rate is thought to be high they are striving to increase the odds of achieving high success consistently. Natural cycling is predicted to be of greatest promise, but would require intensive monitoring by the producer. A vasectomized buck would certainly increase the visual signs of estrus, but a computer-monitored herd wearing pressure-activated rump patches would definitely be the best monitoring system, albeit expensive.
So what about the handling system needed? No one system appears "best", but rather a type of system. As handling generally factors into stress and stress factors in decreased AI success, the system must be one of least stress on the animal. Dr. Card keyed in on "time, management goals, and risk." Animals must be handled when estrus is achieved and the less time corralling and handling the better. Management refers to the ease with which animals can be held, segregated, released, and returned during the AI procedural span. Risk refers to safety and stress-reduction especially in the case of "marginal animals." Whatever system is used, the above factors must be of constant consideration. Remember, AIed animals will be handled three times throughout the AI procedure.
With somewhat of a variety of squeezes available, which one is best for AIing? Having worked with "suspended" deer and "feet on floor" deer, Dr. Card hesitated to give a promotional, choice-swaying answer. She emphatically stated that there must be easy access behind any squeeze used and encourages the modification of existing systems for future AIing. Dr. Card continued with the "access factor." Deer are a rather narrow critter and to crawl into their squeezed space is a chore. Allowing the technician exposure without squeezing person and deer should certainly be a consideration. Dr. Card found a more natural positioning of the reproductive tract in those animals with their feet on the floor, but hesitated to judge on outcome based on this factor alone. Immobilization of the AIed animal is equally important. In the end, Dr. Card advised choosing a squeeze based on majority handling needs. While one type may be better/easier for AIing, she is convinced that any quality deer squeeze will do the job.
And what about the type of animal chosen for an AI project? Dr. Card assuredly states that bottlefeds are more receptive to the procedure due to low stress levels. She is quick to add, though, that except for extremely high-strung, "marginal" animals, AI appears to be a promising procedure, especially with proper handling facilities.
Dr. Card and Woodbury cautiously remind that an experimental research stage can't promise high success rates. Optimistically, indications point to such results. Now it's a matter of fine-tuning techniques, finding available options, and making the choices to increase success. We're all looking forward to fawning, the completion of the 1998 AI equation!
Randy Barks
Please report any technical problems with this site to the webmaster