Embryo and cow factors affecting pregnancy per embryo transfer for multiple-service, lactating Holstein recipients.
embryo transfer
lactating cows
metritis
Journal
Translational animal science
ISSN: 2573-2102
Titre abrégé: Transl Anim Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101738705
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
31
10
2018
accepted:
02
02
2019
entrez:
25
7
2020
pubmed:
10
3
2019
medline:
10
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective was to determine whether pregnancy success after embryo transfer (ET) during heat stress in multi-service Holstein cows depends upon characteristics of the embryo or recipient. Female embryos produced in vitro were cultured with either 0.0 (control) or 1.8 mM choline chloride and transferred fresh. Fresh embryos of undetermined breed and frozen Holstein embryos were used when experimental embryos were insufficient. Embryos were transferred 8 d after the last GnRH injection of an ovulation synchronization program. Embryo type [frozen vs. fresh, choline vs. control, unknown breed vs. (control + choline)] and characteristics of recipients (average of 190 d in milk at transfer) were evaluated. Pregnancy per ET was lower for cows receiving frozen embryos (7.0%; 3/43) than for cows receiving fresh embryos (26.7%; 32/120) but there were no differences between various types of fresh embryo. Pregnancy per ET was lower for cows diagnosed with metritis in the early postpartum period (7.1%; 2/28) than for cows without metritis (24.4%; 33/135). In conclusion, the use of frozen/thawed embryos produced in vitro and recipients which had metritis in the early postpartum period reduced the success of ET in multiple-service Holstein cows.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32704778
doi: 10.1093/tas/txz009
pii: txz009
pmc: PMC7200515
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
60-65Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Références
Endocrinology. 2009 Nov;150(11):5046-54
pubmed: 19797121
J Biol Chem. 2017 Aug 18;292(33):13784-13794
pubmed: 28663368
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Feb;101(2):1088-1110
pubmed: 29224865
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2014 Jan;58(1):172-82
pubmed: 23661599
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Feb;101(2):1540-1553
pubmed: 29153526
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Jul;94(7):3437-45
pubmed: 21700029
Theriogenology. 2011 Dec;76(9):1583-93
pubmed: 21798580
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Nov;93(11):5234-42
pubmed: 20965338
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 14;8(6):e66230
pubmed: 23799080
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2010 Dec;94(6):e259-65
pubmed: 20455967
J Dairy Sci. 1999 Nov;82(11):2369-76
pubmed: 10575603
FASEB J. 2014 Sep;28(9):3975-86
pubmed: 24858280
Theriogenology. 2016 Oct 15;86(7):1834-41
pubmed: 27364084
Theriogenology. 2008 Jul 15;70(2):208-15
pubmed: 18468675
Theriogenology. 1999 Nov;52(7):1161-7
pubmed: 10735094
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Mar;99(3):2201-2220
pubmed: 26723113
Theriogenology. 1985 Apr;23(4):687-96
pubmed: 16726038
Theriogenology. 2016 Apr 1;85(6):1147-51
pubmed: 26739533
J Dairy Sci. 2000 Sep;83(9):2126-30
pubmed: 11003247
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 26;9(8):e103412
pubmed: 25157578
Biol Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;96(3):652-663
pubmed: 28339599
Reproduction. 2016 Dec;152(6):645-654
pubmed: 27601717
BMC Genomics. 2014 Sep 04;15:756
pubmed: 25185836