Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-16T23:40:17.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors of importance when selecting sows as embryo donors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

A. Nohalez ,
C. A. Martinez ,
J. Reixach ,
M. Diaz ,
J. Vila ,
I. Colina ,
I. Parrilla ,
J. L. Vazquez ,
J. Roca  and
M. A. Gil
...Show all authors
A. Nohalez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
C. A. Martinez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
J. Reixach
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Development, Selección Batallé S.A., 17421 Riudarenes, Girona, Spain
M. Diaz
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Development, Selección Batallé S.A., 17421 Riudarenes, Girona, Spain
J. Vila
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Development, Selección Batallé S.A., 17421 Riudarenes, Girona, Spain
I. Colina
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Development, Selección Batallé S.A., 17421 Riudarenes, Girona, Spain
I. Parrilla
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
J. L. Vazquez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
J. Roca
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
M. A. Gil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
H. Rodriguez-Martinez
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine (IKE), Linköping University, Lasarettsgatan 64/65, Lanken, SE-581 85, Linköping, Sweden
E. A. Martinez*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
C. Cuello
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The improvement in porcine embryo preservation and non-surgical embryo transfer (ET) procedures achieved in recent years represents essential progress for the practical use of ET in the pig industry. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of parity, weaning-to-estrus interval (WEI) and season on reproductive and embryonic parameters at day 6 after insemination of donor sows superovulated after weaning. The selection of donor sows was based on their reproductive history, body condition and parity. The effects of parity at weaning (2 to 3, 4 to 5 or 6 to 7 litters), season (fall, winter and spring), and WEI (estrus within 3 to 4 days), and their interactions on the number of corpus luteum, cysts in sows with cysts, number and quality of viable and transferable embryos, embryo developmental stage and recovery and fertilization rates were evaluated using linear mixed effects models. The analyses showed a lack of significant effects of parity, season, WEI or their interactions on any of the reproductive and embryonic parameters examined. In conclusion, these results demonstrate that fertilization rates and numbers of viable and transferable embryos collected at day 6 of the cycle from superovulated donor sows are not affected by their parity, regardless of the time of the year (from fall to spring) and WEI (3 or 4 days).

Keywords

pigembryo donorparityseasonweaning-to-estrus interval
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1330 - 1335
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angel, MA, Gil, MA, Cuello, C, Sanzhez-Osorio, J, Gomis, J, Parrilla, I, Vila, J, Colina, I, Diaz, M, Reixach, J, Vazquez, JL, Vazquez, JM, Roca, J and Martinez, EA 2014. The effects of superovulation of donor sows on ovarian response and embryo development after nonsurgical deep-uterine embryo transfer. Theriogenology 81, 832–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beebe, LFS, Bouwman, EG, McIlfatrick, SM and Nottle, MB 2011. Piglets produced from in vivo blastocysts vitrified using the Cryologic Vitrification Method (solid surface vitrification) and a sealed storage container. Theriogenology 75, 1453–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behan, JR and Watson, PF 2005. The effect of managed boar contact in the post-weaning period on the subsequent fertility and fecundity of sows. Animal Reproduction Science 88, 319–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belstra, BA, Flowers, WL and See, MT 2004. Factors affecting temporal relationships between estrus and ovulation in commercial sow farms. Animal Reproduction Science 84, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brüssow, KP, Torner, H, Kanitz, W and Rátky, J 2000. In vitro technologies related to pig embryo transfer. Reproduction Nutrition Development 40, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castagna, CD, Peixoto, CH, Bortolozzo, FP, Wentz, I, Neto, GB and Ruschel, F 2004. Ovarian cysts and their consequences on the reproductive performance of swine herds. Animal Reproduction Science 8, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, LR, Komkov, A and Tribble, LF 1986. Effects of parity, season, gonadotropin releasing hormone and altered suckling intensity on the interval to rebreeding in sows. Theriogenology 26, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flowers, WL and Alhusen, HD 1992. Reproductive performance and estimates of labor requirements associated with combinations of artificial insemination and natural service in swine. Journal of Animal Science 70, 615–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gherpelli, M and Tarocco, C 1996. A study on the incidence and clinical evolution of the ovarian cysts in the sow. In Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the International Pig Veterinary Society, 7–10 July 1996, Bologna, Italy, p. 587.Google Scholar
Guthrie, HD, Henricks, DM and Handlin, DL 1974. Plasma hormone levels and fertility in pigs induced to superovulate with PMSG. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 41, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtz, W and Schlieper, B 1991. Unsatisfactory results with the transfer of embryos from gilts superovulated with PMSG and hCG. Theriogenology 35, 1237–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, PE 1998. Effects of parity, season and boar contact on the reproductive performance of weaned sows. Livestock Production Science 54, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, PE and Varley, MA 2003. Lifetime performance of the sow. In Perspectives in Pig Science (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley and B Kemp), pp. 333–335. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Hurtgen, JP, Leman, AD and Crabo, B 1980. Seasonal influence on estrous activity in sows and gilts. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 176, 119–123.Google ScholarPubMed
Knox, RV and Rodriguez Zas, SL 2001. Factors influencing estrus and ovulation in weaned sows as determined by transrectal ultrasound. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2957–2963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y and Dial, GD 1997. Factors influencing the postweaning reproductive performance of sows on commercial farms. Theriogenology 47, 1445–1461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koketsu, Y, Takahashi, H and Akachi, K 1999. Longevity, lifetime pig production and productivity, and age at first conception in a cohort of gilts observed over six years on commercial farms. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Science 61, 1001–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptrap, RM and Doble, E 1981. Relationship of prostaglandin F2α to cystic ovarian follicles in the sow. British Veterinary Journal 137, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macháty, Z, Day, BN and Prather, RS 1998. Development of early porcine embryos in vitro and in vivo. Biology of Reproduction 59, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez, EA, Angel, MA, Cuello, C, Sanchez-Osorio, J, Gomis, J, Parrilla, I, Vila, J, Colina, I, Diaz, M, Reixach, J, Vazquez, JL, Vazquez, JM, Roca, J and Gil, MA 2014. Successful non-surgical deep uterine transfer of porcine morulae after 24 hour culture in a chemically defined medium. PLoS One 9, 104696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, EA, Cuello, C, Parrilla, I, Martinez, CA, Nohalez, A, Vazquez, JL, Vazquez, JM, Roca, J and Gil, MA 2016. Recent advances toward the practical application of embryo transfer in pigs. Theriogenology 85, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez, EA, Martinez, CA, Nohalez, A, Sanchez-Osorio, J, Vazquez, JM, Roca, J, Parrilla, I, Gil, MA and Cuello, C 2015. Nonsurgical deep uterine transfer of vitrified, in vivo-derived, porcine embryos is as effective as the default surgical approach. Scientific Reports 5, 10587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poleze, E, Bernardi, ML, Amaral Filha, WS, Wentz, I and Bortolozzo, FP 2006. Consequences of variation in weaning-to-estrus interval on reproductive performance of swine females. Livestock Science 103, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pursel, VG and Johnson, LA 1975. Freezing of boar spermatozoa: fertilizing capacity with concentrated semen and a new thawing procedure. Journal of Animal Science 40, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, PL and Raeside, JI 1991. Cystic ovarian degeneration in pigs: a review I. Irish Veterinary Journal 44, 22–25.Google Scholar
Soede, NM and Kemp, B 1997. Expression of oestrus and timing of ovulation in pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 52 (suppl.), 91–103.Google ScholarPubMed
Wallenhorst, S and Holtz, W 2002. Embryo collection in prepubertal gilts and attempts to develop an improved embryo transfer technique. Veterinary Record 150, 749–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, JM 1998. Photographic illustrations of embryo developmental stage and quality codes. In Manual of the International Embryo Transfer Society (ed. DA Stringfellow and SM Siedel), pp. 167–170. International Embryo Transfer Society (IETS), Savoy, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
Ziecik, AJ, Biallowicz, M, Kaczmarek, M, Demianowicz, W, Rioperez, J, Wasielak, M and Bogacki, M 2005. Influence of estrus synchronization of prepubertal gilts on embryo quality. Journal of Reproduction and Development 51, 379–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed