Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Pigs and Treatment Groups
2.2. Data and Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cassar, G.; Kirkwood, R.N.; Poljik, Z.; Bennett-Steward, K.; Friendship, R.M. Effect of single or double insemination on fertility of sows bred at an induced estrus and ovulation. J. Swine Health Prod. 2005, 13, 254–258. [Google Scholar]
- Cassar, G.; Friendship, R.M.; Zak, L.; Rogan, D.; Kirkwood, R.N. Effect of dose of equine chorionic gonadotrophin on the estrus responses of gilts and weaned sows and effect of the interval between equine chorionic gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone injections on sow performance. J. Swine Health Prod. 2010, 18, 182–186. [Google Scholar]
- De Rensis, F.; Benedetti, S.; Silva, P.; Kirkwood, R.N. Fertility of sows following artificial insemination at a gonadotrophin-induced estrus coincident with weaning. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2003, 76, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirkwood, R.N.; Kauffold, J. Advances in breeding management and use of ovulation induction for fixed-time AI. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 2015, 50, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bortolozzo, F.P.; Menegat, M.B.; Mellagi, A.P.; Bernardi, M.L.; Wentz, L. New artificial insemination technologies for swine. Reprod. Dom. Anim. 2015, 50, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IMV Technologies. Available online: https://www.imv-technologies.com/product/golden-fix?from=224 (accessed on 7 August 2018).
- ter Beek, V. Full speed ahead in boar semen processing. Pig Prog. 2006, 22, 32–33. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, B.; Soede, N.M. Consequences of variation in interval from insemination to ovulation on fertilization in pigs. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1997, 52, 79–89. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, P.F.; Behan, J.R. Intrauterine insemination of sows with reduced sperm numbers: Results of a commercially based field trial. Theriogenology 2002, 57, 1683–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knox, R.V. Artificial Insemination in Pigs Today. Theriogenology 2016, 85, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vazquez, J.M.; Roca, J.; Gil, M.A.; Cuello, C.; Parrilla, I.; Vazquez, J.L.; Martínez, E.A. New developments in low-dose insemination technology. Theriogenology 2008, 70, 1216–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kraeling, R.R.; Webel, S.K. Current strategies for reproductive management of gilts and sows in North America. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steverink, D.W.; Soede, N.M.; Bouwman, E.G.; Kemp, B. Influence of insemination-ovulation intervaland sperm cell dose on fertilization in sows. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1997, 111, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martinez, E.A.; Vazquez, J.M.; Roca, J.; Lucas, X.; Gil, M.A.; Parrilla, I.; Vazquez, J.L.; Day, B.N. Successful non-surgical deep intrauterine insemination with small numbers of spermatozoa in sows. Reproduction 2001, 122, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pelland, C.; Cassar, G.; Kirkwood, R.N.; Friendship, R.M. Fertility after intrauterine insemination with conventional or low numbers of spermatozoa in sows with synchronized ovulation. J. Swine Health Prod. 2008, 16, 188–192. [Google Scholar]
- Michalak, M. GEDIS® AI catheter impact on reproductive performance and labor savings. In American Association Swine of Swine Veterinarians, In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting proceedings, Toronto, ON, Canada, 5–8 March 2005; pp. 121–124. [Google Scholar]
- Dimitrov, S.; Karapetkovska-Hristova, V.; Kochoski, L.; Prodanovska, V.; Ntsefong, N.G. Application of Gedis systems in artificial insemination technology of sows. J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2018, 12, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Alm, K.; Peltoniemi, O.; Koskinen, E.; Andersson, M. Porcine Field Fertility with Two Different Insemination Doses and the Effect of Sperm Morphology. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2006, 41, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fontana, R.N.; Ulguim, R.R.; Sbardella, P.E.; Bernadi, M.L.; Wentz, I.; Bortolozzo, F.P. Fixed-time post-cervical insemination in sows receiving porcine luteinising hormone at oestrus onset. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2014, 144, 109–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Number of Sows Assigned | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
135 | 123 | 127 | 126 | |||
Number inseminated (% inseminated sows) | 125 (93.1) | 121 (98.4) | 127 (100) | 126 (100) | ||
Pregnancy check positive (% positive of sows bred) | 108 (86.4) a | 101 (83.5) ab | 101 (79.5) b | 86 (68.2) c | 0.002 | |
Farrow (% inseminated sows that farrow) | 102 (81.6) a | 94 (77.7) a | 94 (74) a | 79 (62.7) b | 0.005 | |
Number of sows within parity categories (%) | 1 | 31 (23.5) | 34 (28.1) | 30 (23.8) | 23 (18.8) | 0.2 |
2–3 | 60 (45.4) | 50 (41.3) | 43 (34.1) | 51 (41.8) | ||
>3 | 41 (31) | 37 (30.6) | 53 (42) | 48 (39.3) | ||
Mean (SD) | ||||||
Total born per litter | 13.4 (3.3) a | 13.04 (4.15) ab | 12.02 (4.5) b | 12.5 (4.4) ab | 0.09 | |
Born alive per litter * | 11.6 (3.4) a | 11.2 (3.4) ab | 10.3 (3.9) b | 10.9 (3.7) ab | 0.08 | |
Total litter birth weights (kg) | 17.5 (5.4) | 17.01 (4.6) | 16.2 (5.6) | 17.8 (4.9) | 0.1 | |
Piglet birth weight (kg) * | 1.53 (0.27) a | 1.55 (0.25) ab | 1.62 (0.35) cb | 1.64 (0.26) c | 0.03 | |
Breeding to farrow ** (days) | 116.06 (1.4) | 115.8 (1.1) | 116.03 (1.3) | 115.9 (1.2) | 0.7 |
Fixed Portion | OR † | Lower CI * | Higher CI * | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Referent | |||
Group 2 | 0.72 | 0.37 | 1.38 | 0.3 |
Group 3 | 0.57 | 0.30 | 1.07 | 0.08 |
Group 4 | 0.35 | 0.19 | 0.65 | 0.001 |
Parity 1 | Referent | |||
Parity 2–3 | 1.28 | 0.75 | 2.2 | 0.3 |
Parity >3 | 1.39 | 0.80 | 2.4 | 0.2 |
Fixed Portion | Coefficient | SE * | Lower CI ** | Higher CI ** | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Referent | ||||
Group 2 | −0.41 | 0.57 | −1.5 | 0.71 | 0.4 |
Group 3 | −1.6 | 0.57 | −2.7 | −0.46 | 0.006 |
Group 4 | −1.2 | 0.6 | −2.4 | −0.02 | 0.04 |
Parity 1 | Referent | ||||
Parity 2–3 | 0.86 | 0.56 | −0.22 | 1.9 | 0.1 |
Parity >3 | 2.3 | 0.55 | 1.1 | 3.4 | <0.001 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
McBride, M.; Amezcua, R.; Cassar, G.; O’Sullivan, T.; Friendship, R. Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency. Animals 2019, 9, 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100748
McBride M, Amezcua R, Cassar G, O’Sullivan T, Friendship R. Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency. Animals. 2019; 9(10):748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100748
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcBride, Matthew, Rocio Amezcua, Glen Cassar, Terri O’Sullivan, and Robert Friendship. 2019. "Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency" Animals 9, no. 10: 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100748
APA StyleMcBride, M., Amezcua, R., Cassar, G., O’Sullivan, T., & Friendship, R. (2019). Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency. Animals, 9(10), 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100748