Punch testing for pregnancy.

[TexasBred]

Let me break it down for ya. The difference in punching vs bumping is about the same as if you brush your teeth with your left hand or your right. Well, maybe not that extreem.

And everybody has their own peculiar way of doing it. If it works, why change it.

But when the vet palpated that cow I'm surprised the calf didnt' bite him. At 8 months he should have been able to feel it's eyelashes and not needed to bump the calf.

One of the tests to determine the existence or absence of pregnancy is the so-called 'punch test,' technically known as 'abdominal ballottement,' which consists of punching the cow lightly on the right-hand side of her abdomen with a loosely made fist. This procedure may at certain stages in the pregnancy enable one to feel the calf or fetus. The 'punch test' is widely used by farmers and stockmen or people in the trade; it is, admittedly, a superficial means of testing for pregnancy and is not considered reliable either by the veterinary profession or by people in the trade

 

[VanC]

When I was a kid I knew a lady who could tell you what sex a calf was going to be by looking at the pregnant cow's vulva. She was right about 50% of the time.

:lol: :lol:

 

[Sir Loin]

Re:

The 'punch test' is widely used by farmers and stockmen or people in the trade; it is, admittedly, a superficial means of testing for pregnancy and is not considered reliable either by the veterinary profession or by people in the trade

Now there is a statement that is diabolically opposed to it self!!
"The 'punch test' is widely used by" "people in the trade".
But "is not considered reliable" "by people in the trade".

Then why do they use it??
Only an attorney can write something like that and get away with it!!
SL

 

[regolith]

:roll:
so what proportion of palapated early pregnancies are lost as a result of the palpation SL??

bumping = punching, let's not get too confused now.
why use it? Maybe, like EPDs and pasture assessments and condition scoring, it's a highly useful, if not 100% perfect, tool. It can also be done by an unskilled person on an unrestrained cow while she's eating or grazing.
I don't bother. Open cows cycle. Pregnant heifers look pregnant from four months, pregnant cows *usually* are visibly pregnant at any time they don't have a packed-full rumen, from six or seven months. Need any more detail than that and either I or the vet can palpate when it's next convenient.

 

[regolith]

Didn't read the article TB... but if I have a cow in good condition I've seen vets give up on them. "She *must* be pregnant, she looks pregnant" they'll say, apparently they can't find the uterus through the fat. Now you keep beef cows in much better condition than my dairies, I can't even imagine trying to AI or palp a fat hereford. (maybe in a couple years, I've got a hereford cross in the calf line this year)

 

[Sir Loin]

regolith

Re:

so what proportion of palapated early pregnancies are lost as a result of the palpation SL??

I don't know if I ever seen an actual number, nor do I know how you could ever establish one.
But it is a well know fact that any invasive procedure carries with it the possibility of infection and any infection can lead to a compromised immune system which can cause them to abort.
Then there is the issue of not using, or not changing gloves for each animal.

Then you have today's work ethic and cost to deal with if you don't do your own.
Ya know, fast and uncaring. Get in, get out, grope grab dig and squeeze and move on to the next one and don't care if you damage the fetus in the process.
That will be $75.


As you are in the dairy business thought I would pass this on to you.
In my area baby black angus Holstein cross calves bring $200 to $250.
Holstein on Holstein baby claves bring $70 to $100.

Some dairymen in my area are AIing the cows they want replacement heifers out of and breeding the rest of the herd with an on site Angus bull.
The bull is also used to indicate when and which cow is in heat for AIing.

They tell me the cost of the bull is more then paid for by the increase in calf sales profit and they pocket the savings from not having to AI their whole herd.

Thanks for the intellectual post.
SL

 

[regolith]

yep, been doing that for a couple of years now, mainly to reduce the need to use hormones to kickstart cycling but any low production/genetic merit cows also go out with the bull.
It means running two herds through the AI season, so a bit more work, but saves me work in not drafting and AI-ing those cows. I don't get much benefit from the beef calves because there's too much Jersey in most of the cows.

I've never lost a calf that's been palped, aside from 2010 I had the whole herd PD'd and several of the late calvers turned up open later... but I know at least two of those lost their calves after the cows were moved to a different farm and I think that was probably the story with all five? cows.
Establishing a number should be fairly simple... a randomly selected sample (very large) should have an identical calving rate. So analysing numbers that are culled (open) or that don't calve between a group that's been palped and a group that hasn't - I'm sure someone must have done it.

 

[dun]

We must have different kind of folks palping around here. If someone does like you suggest he/she would be out of work in very short order. Anyone that is worth his/her salt at palping can tell the difference within 2 weeks (and usually) as to how far along the pregnancy is. One of the benefits of that is being able to know if she settled to the AI date or the cleanup bull settled her. May not mean much to some folks but to know which cows to start kepping an eye on as their due date approaches sure saves a lot of wear and tear.

 

[TexasBred]

Re:

The 'punch test' is widely used by farmers and stockmen or people in the trade; it is, admittedly, a superficial means of testing for pregnancy and is not considered reliable either by the veterinary profession or by people in the trade

Now there is a statement that is diabolically opposed to it self!!
"The 'punch test' is widely used by" "people in the trade".
But "is not considered reliable" "by people in the trade".

Then why do they use it??
Only an attorney can write something like that and get away with it!!
SL

SL it was cut and pasted from the link to the court case you previously posted. Did you not even read what you posted??

 

[TexasBred]

Didn't read the article TB... but if I have a cow in good condition I've seen vets give up on them. "She *must* be pregnant, she looks pregnant" they'll say, apparently they can't find the uterus through the fat. Now you keep beef cows in much better condition than my dairies, I can't even imagine trying to AI or palp a fat hereford. (maybe in a couple years, I've got a hereford cross in the calf line this year)

Apparently the vet was just not worth a dam at palpating. Fat cattle are a bit harder to palpate and even harder to AI but neither is impossible if you have a clue what you're doing. In this case she was 8 months bred.....it should have been a no brainer for the vet AND the farmer.

 

[whitecow]

HOT off thepresses in Drovers a study from Texas A&M designed to determine if rectal palpation for pregnancy determination affects pregnancy loss (as sometimes believed)

900 COWS - scanned at 31 days and confirmed pg

452 cows palpated (slipped the membrane once in half, twice in the other half)

476 not palpated

scanned again d 45 to 60

from d 31 to 60
pregnancy loss was
14.5% for control (not palpated cows)
12.6% for once slipped cows
14.9% for twice slipped cows

embryonic loss from d 31 to 45
12.4% controls
9.1% once slipped
9.5 % for twice slipped

conclusion - rectal palpation does not increase pregnancy loss

 

[Sir Loin]

OK let me see if I can straighten this out!

SL it was cut and pasted from the link to the court case you previously posted. Did you not even read what you posted??

I know that and yes I have read it many times over the years since 1961-4 and discussed it with "people in the trade".


FYI all:
Origin of this topic:
While cleaning out some old files on "cost cutting" I found "punch testing for pregnancy" as a means to cut cost.
So I posted the topic to see if there were any new or improved methods being used today to punch test.

To my surprise, it looks like PETA has corrupted "punch testing" to become "bumping" and has further changed the procedure and therefore the results you would get from punch testing.
Or it has just morphed on it's own like corncob to Sears Catalog then to Charmin.

Now from personal experience "punch testing works" and from just reading about "bumping" it can not give you the same information punch testing can.
And it seems pushing can be more expensive then punch testing although it can be used as a means to cut cost.

So, if pushing works for you, fine, use it.
But remember both punching and pushing will only tell you if the cow is pregnant, NOT if she is not pregnant.
SL

TB,
Re:

Apparently the vet was just not worth a dam at palpating.

Over these many years, if I remember correctly, we have pretty well ruled that one out as he got all/most? the other cows correct.
Again, if I remember correctly, the 3 most logical conclusion we came to were:
1. The cow was never checked for un-know reason
2. Paperwork mix up
3. Farmer Brown did a friend a favor by swapping cows with him at the last minute before the sale ( as in an open heifer for an old 8 mo. Bred cow. Plus maybe some cash $$)

Remember this all went on back in the early 60s when there was a lot of wheeling and dealing going on between farmers.
SL

 

[dun]

Dairymen have been bumping cows (and that's what they called it) ever since they started being interested in knowing if a cow was bred and there was a bigger shortage of vets then there is today.

 

[Sir Loin]

whitecow

Nice job, thanks.
Now I have some questions for you.
I will give them to you one at a time so as not to confuse the issue.

Q 1. Who funded this study performed by Texas A&M?
Please quote your source. URL please.
SL

 

[whitecow]

whitecow

Nice job, thanks.
Now I have some questions for you.
I will give them to you one at a time so as not to confuse the issue.

Q 1. Who funded this study performed by Texas A&M?
Please quote your source. URL please.
SL

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drover...l-palpation-and-pregnancy-loss-139096444.html

I don't know the funding source. I haven't seen a peer-reviewed paper yet. Just this note in Drovers.

 

[whitecow]

whitecow

Nice job, thanks.
Now I have some questions for you.
I will give them to you one at a time so as not to confuse the issue.

Q 1. Who funded this study performed by Texas A&M?
Please quote your source. URL please.
SL

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drover...l-palpation-and-pregnancy-loss-139096444.html

I don't know the funding source. I haven't seen a peer-reviewed paper yet. Just this note in Drovers.

Here's the abstract and reference for the peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21879969

 

[Sir Loin]

whitecow

The study was released via the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association who is most likely the source of the funding which makes this a special interest study funded by said special interest group.
Point: This is not an independent study and should be considered suspect.
See:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10 ... b%3dpubmed
SL

Q 2.
Re:

conclusion - rectal palpation does not increase pregnancy loss

Is that a 100% true statement based on the study?
SL

 

[whitecow]

whitecow

The study was released via the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association who is most likely the source of the funding which makes this a special interest study funded by said special interest group.
Point: This is not an independent study and should be considered suspect.
See:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10 ... b%3dpubmed
SL

Q 2.
Re:

conclusion - rectal palpation does not increase pregnancy loss

Is that a 100% true statement based on the study?
SL

Very unlikely that the study was funded by the AVMA. If so, it probably would have been published in a different journal. If it was funded by AVMA, that conflict of interest would be stated in the publication.

Is the conclusion 100% true? That's not how statistics works. The conclusion is statistically accurate and is clearly supported by the data.

I didn't do the study or personnally review the data, but I wholeheartedly believe it. I have decades of experience palpating and ultrasounding within my own herd and professionally. I do not think that I have ever caused a pregnancy to be lost by palpation.

You are free to use whatever method of pregnancy determination that you chose. I will stick with palpation, ultrasound and, in some situations, blood test.

 

[TexasBred]

conclusion - rectal palpation does not increase pregnancy loss
Is that a 100% true statement based on the study?
SL

It is if you read their research and understand it:

All cattle were determined to be pregnant by use of transrectal ultrasonography at approximately day 31 after estrus and randomly allocated into 2 groups (control group [n = 476 cows] and palpation group [452]). The control group was not subjected to pregnancy diagnosis via PPR. The palpation group was subdivided into 2 groups (PPR FMS 1 [n = 230 cows] and PPR FMS 2 [222]), which involved PPR and pregnancy diagnosis via 1 or 2 FMSs, respectively, during the same examination, which was performed by 1 veterinarian between days 34 and 43 after estrus. All cattle were reevaluated by use of transrectal ultrasonography on days 45 and 60 to determine viability of the embryo and fetus, respectively.

Results—Overall pregnancy loss between days 31 and 60 was 14.1%. Pregnancy loss for the control, PPR FMS 1, and PPR FMS 2 groups from days 31 to 60 was 14.5%, 12.6%, and 14.9%, respectively. Embryonic pregnancy loss for the control, PPR FMS 1, and PPR FMS 2 groups was 12.4%, 9.1%, and 9.5%, respectively. Fetal pregnancy loss for the same groups was 2.4%, 3.8%, and 5.9%, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Pregnancy diagnosis via 1 or 2 FMSs performed during PPR in early gestation did not increase pregnancy loss in dairy cattle.

They did not conclude that there were NO losses....just no increase in losses.

You are always welcome to form your own opinion based on nothing.

 

[Sir Loin]

whitecow

Re:

Is the conclusion 100% true? That's not how statistics works. The conclusion is statistically accurate and is clearly supported by the data.

The statistics may be " statistically accurate " but they do not support the conclusion 100%.
As a matter of fact the statistics ( the study ) does in fact show: "rectal palpation"
"affects pregnancy loss (as sometimes believed)" and, from the study, one could also conclude that "rectal palpation" could actually decreases pregnancy loss .
Therefore the answer to:
Q2:

conclusion - rectal palpation does not increase pregnancy loss

Is that a 100% true statement based on the study?
Absolutely not. NO!

If the answer was yes and the conclusion was true, then all statistics should be equal in all three groups, which they are not.
Conclusion: The study is flawed and should not be relied upon.

Q 3:
Why are there discrepancies in the statistical findings?

SL