Vol. 9, Special Issue 4, Part B (2025)

Comparison of ovulation prediction methods in dogs

Author(s):

Prajna U Bhat, BM Ravindranath, Suchitra BR, Naveen Kumar S, GP Kalmath, Chetan Kumar and A Sahadev

Abstract:

The present study was conducted to detect ovulation and compare the relative accuracy of different ovulation prediction methods in dogs. Eighty dogs of medium to large breeds, aged between 1.5 to 4 years, presented to the Department of Veterinary Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Veterinary College and other private clinics in Bengaluru were considered in this study. Group I, Group II, Group III, and Group IV animals were bred based on vaginal exfoliative cytology and vaginoscopy, vaginal mucus impedance, progesterone and luteinizing hormone estimation respectively (n=20). The mean number of days from the onset of spotting to the first day of mating recorded was 9.60±0.50, 10.10±0.53, 10.10±0.58 and 9.70±0.57 days for the respective groups, showing no significant difference. The conception rates were 60, 85, 85 and 70 percent, respectively, with no significant difference. The mean gestational lengths of Groups I to IV were recorded as 61.92±1.43, 61.29±1.16, 63.09±0.42 and 63.36±0.67 days, respectively, showing a significant difference (p<0.05) between groups II and IV. The mean litter sizes were 7.17±0.52, 7.65±0.45, 7.71±0.55 and 5.50±0.30 for the respective groups with significant differences (p<0.05) between group IV against groups II and III. It was concluded that all four methods for ovulation prediction in the present study were equally effective with slight variations among them. However, further studies involving large sample sizes and by considering the combination of two or more methods may be more effective in accurately determining the fertile period.

Pages: 110-115  |  112 Views  46 Downloads

How to cite this article:
Prajna U Bhat, BM Ravindranath, Suchitra BR, Naveen Kumar S, GP Kalmath, Chetan Kumar and A Sahadev. Comparison of ovulation prediction methods in dogs. Int. J. Adv. Biochem. Res. 2025;9(4S):110-115. DOI: 10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i4Sb.4083