MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771980829 · doi:10.1071/rdv30n1ab196

196 Fertilization Rate in Superovulated Criolla Goats Following Artificial Insemination or Natural Mating

2017· article· en· W2771980829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcela Isabel Cueto, Jarrah Kay Fernandez, María Macarena Bruno-Galarraga, F. Pereyra-Bonnet, A. Gibbons

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyArtificial inseminationEstrous cycleAnimal scienceHuman fertilizationSeasonal breederBreedSemenInseminationMatingEcologyBotanySpermAgronomyAnatomyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Criolla breed is a local genetic resource, distributed in Patagonia, Argentina, whose primary production is meat. In the Criolla goat, efforts were made to locate productively superior males and to conserve their genetic material. Studies were carried on the feasibility of obtaining superior offspring through the implementation of embryo transfer programs. We assessed the fertilization rate and embryo production following AI with frozen semen or natural mating in Criolla goats subjected to a superovulation program. During the breeding season (May, 41° S), 26 Criolla goats were treated for oestrus with sponges (60 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate, Progespon®, Syntex, Buenos Aires, Argentina) placed for 13 days. Goat donors were superovulated with a total of 80 mg of porcine (p)FSH (Folltropin V®, Bioniche, Ontario, Canada) every 12 h in 6 decreasing doses (18, 18, 14, 14, 8, and 8 mg) during the last 3 days of progestagen treatment. A dose of 125 µg of cloprostenol (Estrumate®, Schering-Plough, Quebec, Canada) was given in conjunction with the first dose of pFSH. Oestrus detection was performed every 12 h, starting at 24 h after sponge removal. Females were considered to be in oestrus if they passively accepted buck mounting. Goats were randomly assigned to the following treatments: (1) natural mating (NM, n = 12): donors detected in oestrus were individually mated with one proven fertile buck at oestrus and 12 h post-oestrus; does were remove from the male in between (Conventionally accepted treatment); (2) AI (n = 14): donors detected in oestrus were inseminated 12 ± 2 h after the onset of oestrus by laparoscopy with frozen-thawed semen (200 × 106 spermatozoa) from the same fertile buck. Embryo recovery was done by surgical prepubic laparotomy at Day 8 after sponge removal. Superovulation response was estimated by counting the number of corpora lutea (CL). Analysis of variance was used to compare fertilization rate (total number of embryos recovered for each animal, expressed as a proportion of the total number of embryos/oocytes recovered) and embryo production between treatments. Results were expressed as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05. A total of 92.3% goats were recorded in oestrus (24/26) between 24 and 48 h after sponge removal (10 and 14 goats for NM and AI, respectively). An average of 16.6 ± 2.0 CL (range: 2–32) was observed in response to superovulation treatment. The recovery rate of embryos/oocytes was 60.0 ± 6.9%. No statistical difference was observed in the fertilization rate (52.1 ± 12.1 and 68.6 ± 12.1% for AI and NM, respectively) or the number of total (6.8 ± 2.0 and 4.8 ± 2.4 for AI and NM, respectively) and transferable embryos (5.6 ± 1.4 and 4.0 ± 1.7 for AI and NM, respectively) between treatments (P > 0.05). In conclusion, fertilization rates did not differ following laparoscopic insemination with frozen semen compared to natural mating in superovulated Criolla goats.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207