Assessment of sedation and cardiorespiratory variables in sheep using different anesthetic protocols during artificial insemination

• Autor(a) principal: Bernardi Filho, Paulo Roberto
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Comassetto, Felipe, Ronchi, Samuel Jorge, Serighelli Júnior, Gilberto, Casali, Renata, Dallabrida, Ademar Luiz, Oleskovicz, Nilson
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/44120
• topic: Inseminação artificial; Ovelha; Protocolos de sedação; Texel.; Artificial insemination; Sheep; Sedation protocols; Texel.

Artificial insemination (AI) is an important technique in sheep breeding. Since it is an invasive procedure, sedation and analgesia are essential. In the present study, 75 Texel sheep, standardized for weight (kg) and age (months) were used. The animals were randomly allocated to five groups: Acepromazine Group (AG); Acepromazine and Butorphanol Group (ABG); Acepromazine and Morphine Group (AMG); Acepromazine and Meperidine Group (AMRG) and Saline group (SG). The following parameters were assessed: sedation score, agitation level, heart rate (HR); respiratory rate (f), rectal temperature (T°R), latency time and time to perform artificial insemination (AI). Assessments times were M-20, M0, M1 and M2. Significant differences were considered when p˂0.05. There were no significant differences for weight and age. HR increased by 30.6, 34.2 and 42.5% from M-20 to M2 for the AG, ABG and AMRG, respectively. At M0, the AMRG obtained higher values, reaching 41.4% above the other groups. For f there was a decline of 21.8 and 26.9% in M1 in relation to M-20 for the AMRG and AMG, respectively, and a decrease of 20 and 25% between M-20 and M2. A comparison between SG f values showed an increase of 106.3 and 68.8% between M-20 and M1 and M2, respectively. The f values obtained at M1 and M2 for the SG were higher than those of the other groups. Although there were no intergroup differences in sedation level, the values obtained are clinically relevant. There were intergroup differences in agitation level, whereby at M1, AMRG and AMG obtained a score of 2 and SG 0, while at M2, AMG scored 2 and SG 0. There were no statistical differences for latency and AI times. Thus, under the conditions of the present study, the AMRG protocol was the least safe among the options assessed. The pre-anesthetic medication protocols promoted mild sedation and did not reduce the time required for AI.