MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of timing of artificial insemination in relation to onset of standing estrus on pregnancy per AI in Nili-Ravi buffalo

2018· article· en· W2904353135 on OpenAlexaff
Umair Riaz, Mubbashar Hassan, Ali Husnain, Muhammad Ilyas Naveed, Jaswant Singh, Nasim Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Reproduction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleArtificial inseminationPregnancyBiologyPregnancy rateEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineAndrologyPhysiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to determine the optimum time of artificial insemination after the beginning of standing estrus in buffalo. Nili-Ravi buffalo (n = 109) during breeding season were exposed to teaser bull at 12 hours interval to determine the standing heat (0 h). Buffalo were randomly allocated to different time groups and a single artificial insemination was performed either at 0 h (n = 30), 12 h (n = 27), 24 h (n = 28) or 36 h (n = 24). In a subset of buffalo (n = 38) ultrasonography was performed, twice daily from 0 h (onset of standing heat) to determine the time of ovulation. Pregnancy diagnosis was performed 35-40 days after AI. Results revealed that mean time of ovulation from onset of standing heat was 34.7 ± 0.96 h (range 30 to 42 h). Higher (P < 0.05) pregnancy per AI were achieved in buffalo when inseminated at 24 h (15/28; 53%) compared to 0 h (8/30; 26%) and 36 h (3/24; 13%). Pregnancy per AI, was in-between, in buffalo, inseminated at 12 h (10/27; 37%) and did not differ (P > 0.05) with those bred either at 24 h or 0 h. The odds ratio further confirmed that the occurrence of pregnancy per AI was two times higher in buffalo inseminated at 24 h as compared to those at 12 h. It is concluded that optimal pregnancy per AI can be achieved when buffalo are bred artificially 24 h after the onset of standing heat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ReproductionSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207