Effects of intrauterine and cervical artificial-insemination catheters on farrowing rate and litter size (original) (raw)

Abstract

To determine the effects of type of artificial-insemination catheter on litter size and farrowing rate and to evaluate the economic differences between the two catheters on the basis of the differences observed in reproductive performance.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (14)

  1. Lawrence JD, Grimes G. Production and marketing characteristics of U.S. pork producers. Economics department staff paper No. 343. Iowa State University. 2000. Available at: http://www. econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/Staffp- pr343FNL.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2007. *2. Knox RV. Artificial insemination of swine: Improving reproductive efficiency of the breeding herd. Proceedings of Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Swine Seminar. 2001;15:1-16. Available at: http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc. edu. Accessed 26 October 2007.
  2. Almond G, Britt J, Flowers B, Glossop C, Levis D, Morrow M, See T. The Swine AI Book; A field and technicians' guide to artificial insemination in swine. 2nd ed. Verona, Wisconsin: Minitube of America, Inc. 1998:98.
  3. *4. Hill G, Rozeboom D, Trottier N, Mahan D, Adeoli L, Cline T, Forsyth D, Richert B. Tri-State Swine Nutrition Guide. Available at: http://ohio- line.osu.edu/b869/index.html. Accessed 26 October 2007.
  4. *5. Swine Care Handbook. Des Moines, Iowa: National Pork Board. 2003;6-12.
  5. Rozeboom KJ, Reicks DL, Wilson ME. The reproductive performance and factors affecting on- farm application of low-dose intrauterine deposit of semen in sows. J Anim Sci. 2004;82:2164-2168.
  6. Martinez EA, Vazquez JM, Roca J, Lucas X, Gil MA, Parrila I, Vazquez JL, Day BN. Successful non-surgical deep intrauterine insemination with small numbers of spermatozoa in sows. Reproduc- tion. 2001;122:289-296.
  7. Serret CG, Alvarenga MVF, Coria ALP, Corcini CD, Correa MN, Deschamps JC, Bianchi I, Lucia T Jr. Intrauterine artificial insemination of swine with different sperm concentrations, parities, and methods for prediction of ovulation. Anim Reprod. 2005;2:250-256.
  8. Roberts PK, Bilkei G. Field experiences on post- cervical artificial insemination in the sow. Reprod Dom Anim. 2005;40:489-491.
  9. *10. Johnson RK. Heterosis and Breed Effects in Swine. North Central Regional Publication No. 262. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 1980.
  10. Yen HF, Isler GA, Harvey WR, Irvin KM. Fac- tors affecting reproductive performance in swine. J Anim Sci. 1987;64:1340-1348.
  11. Noblet J, Dourmad Y, Etienne M. Energy utilization in pregnant and lactating sows: Modeling of energy requirements. J Anim Sci. 1990;68:562-572.
  12. Esbenshade KL, Britt JH, Armstrong JD, Toelle VD, Stanislaw CM. Body condition of sows across parities and relationship to reproductive performance. J Anim Sci. 1986;62:1187-1193.
  13. Watson PF, Behan JR. Intrauterine insemina- tion of sows with reduced sperm numbers: results of a commercially based field trial. Theriogenology. 2002;57:1683-1693.
  14. Martinez EA, Vazquez JM, Roca J, Lucas X, Gil MA, Parrila I, Vazquez JL, Day BN. Minimum number of spermatozoa required for normal fertil- ity after deep intrauterine insemination in non- sedated sows. Reproduction. 2002;123:163-170. *16. Lawrence J. SEW Pig Prices Monthly Average and Seasonality Index. Available at: http://www. econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/ periodicals/chartbook/files/siteindex.htm. Accessed 26 October 2007. *17. PigCHAMP Breeding Herd Summary U.S.A. 2005. Available at: http://www.pigchampinc. com/overview5.asp. Accessed 26 October 2007. * Non-refereed references.