MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989836303 · doi:10.1071/rdv32n2ab153

153 The effects of parity and oxytocin or prostaglandin F2α added to insemination doses on reproductive performance of pigs bred in summer

2019· article· en· W2989836303 on OpenAlexaff
T. Schwarz, Peter P. Jaros, R. Tuz, J Nowicki, Pawel M. Bartlewski

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtenderInseminationAnimal scienceSemenEstrous cycleBiologyOxytocinArtificial inseminationBOARProstaglandinLactationPregnancyEndocrinologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summer is the least favourable season for swine reproduction, mainly due to long photoperiods and heat stress. Such conditions negatively impinge on the reproductive system of sows and boars, manifesting in debilitated uterine and gonadal function. This situation is exacerbated by the dilution of ejaculates in semen extender before AI. Consequently, there is a noticeable decline in piglet productivity of summer-breeding gilts and sows. The main goal of this study was to determine the effect of oxytocin (OX) or prostaglandin F2α analogue (PG) added to boar semen extender on the duration of insemination and reproductive performance of pigs bred in July and August. A total of 144 females (80 gilts and second-parity sows (G+SP) and 64 multiparous sows (M)) were divided into three groups (n = 48 per group). The OX (11 G+SP and 37 M) and PG (20 G+SP and 28 M) groups were inseminated twice (at the onset of behavioural oestrus and 22-24 h later) using semen supplemented with 20 IU of OX or 5 mg of PG, respectively; the controls (33 G+SP and 15 M) were artificially inseminated with non-supplemented inseminate doses. Pregnancy was detected ultrasonographically on gestational day 42, and the number and viability of piglets were recorded at farrowing. Proportions were analysed using chi-square test (Brandt and Snedecor formula), and other numerical data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test to determine the differences between individual mean values (SigmaPlot, Systat Software Inc.). The mean duration of first insemination was shorter (P < 0.05) in M females (80 ± 22 s) compared with G+SP females (191 ± 26 s) inseminated with PG-supplemented semen, whereas the second insemination was shorter (P < 0.05) in M females than in G+SP females artificially inseminated with OX-supplemented semen (93 ± 15 s compared with 192 ± 28 s). The mean pregnancy rate was lower (P < 0.05) in control G+SP females (26/33; 85%) than in OX G+SP females (11/11; 100%). The farrowing rate was less (P < 0.05) in control females (36/48; 75%) than in OX females (44/48; 92%), and it was less (P < 0.05) in PG G+SP females (14/20; 70%) compared with PG M females (26/28; 93%). The M females in the OX group had more (P < 0.05) stillborn piglets per litter compared with their G+SP counterparts (0.6 ± 0.1 vs. 0.1 ± 0.1). Overall, PG females had more (P < 0.05) weak piglets per litter (1.2 ± 0.2) compared with the control (0.5 ± 0.2) and OX (0.6 ± 0.2) groups. The present results reveal the occurrence of both beneficial and undesirable effects of PG and OX added to boar semen extender on reproductive performance of breeding pigs in summer. Addition of PG was associated with shorter first-insemination times in older sows compared with G+SP animals but also with lower farrowing rates in younger animals and an overall increase in the number of weak piglets at farrowing. Supplementation of OX was in turn associated with a shorter second insemination and higher pregnancy rates in young females but more stillborn piglets per litter in multiparous sows. The specific causative mechanisms of these associations remain to be elucidated.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207