Abstract #M288
Section: Production, Management and the Environment
Session: Production, Management and the Environment I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
Session: Production, Management and the Environment I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
# M288
Factors affecting the success of an embryo transfer program in dairy cattle.
Priscila Ferraz*3, Clay Burnley4, John Karanja5, Achilles Vieira-Neto1, Jose Eduardo P. Santos1, Klibs N. Galvão2, 1Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 3Escola de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 4Southern Embryo, Athens, GA, 5North Florida Holsteins, Bell, FL.
Key Words: embryo transfer, pregnancy, dairy cattle
Factors affecting the success of an embryo transfer program in dairy cattle.
Priscila Ferraz*3, Clay Burnley4, John Karanja5, Achilles Vieira-Neto1, Jose Eduardo P. Santos1, Klibs N. Galvão2, 1Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 3Escola de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 4Southern Embryo, Athens, GA, 5North Florida Holsteins, Bell, FL.
Objective of the study was to evaluate factors affecting pregnancy per embryo transfer (PET) in dairy cattle. A total of 10,634 transfers in 6,734 Holstein dairy cows (primiparous = 2,287; multiparous = 1,907) and heifers (n = 6,440) from a 4,500-cow commercial herd in Northern Florida, were used. Data on collection year (2011–2014), transfer season (fall, winter, spring, summer), semen type [conventional (C), sexed (S)], embryo type (Fresh, Frozen, IVF, IVF-Frozen), embryo developmental stage (4 - morula, 5 - early blastocyst, 6 - blastocyst, 7 - expanded blastocyst, 8 - hatched blastocyst), embryo quality grade (1 - excellent/good, 2 - fair, 3 - poor), recipient parity (N - nulliparous, P - primiparous, M - multiparous), recipient estrous cycle day (5, 6, 7, 8, 9), technician (1, 2, 3, 4), DIM, and milk yield at the time of transfer were collected. The embryos were produced in vivo (superstimulation and uterine flush 7 d after AI) or in vitro (ovum pick-up, fertilization, in vitro culture for 7 d). Pregnancy was diagnosed at 41 ± 3 d of gestation. Data were evaluated by mixed logistic regression using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS using all data listed as fixed effects and recipient ID as random. PET was affected by embryo type (Fresh = 48.1%, Frozen = 36.6%, IVF = 38.9%, IVF-Frozen = 32.6%; P < 0.001), embryo stage (4 = 36.4%, 5 = 34.1%, 6 = 38.2%, 7 = 45.2%, 8 = 37.1%; P < 0.001), embryo quality (1 = 42.1%, 2 = 32.6%, 3 = 23.5%; P < 0.001), recipient parity (n = 41.9%, P = 37.7%, M = 31.6%; P < 0.001), recipient estrous cycle day (5 = 32.6%, 6 = 36.4%, 7 = 40.8%, 8 = 40.4%, 9 = 36.6%; P < 0.001), technician (1 = 33.9%, 2 = 33.5%, 3 = 38.0%, 4 = 43.8%; P < 0.001), semen type (C = 39.9%, S = 37.7%, P = 0.03), transfer year (2011 = 44.2%, 2012 = 41.5%, 2013 = 38.2%, 2014 = 36.5%, P < 0.001). In conclusion, PET was affected by year, semen type, embryo type, embryo stage and quality, recipient parity, recipient estrous cycle day, and technician, but not by transfer season, DIM or milk yield at embryo transfer.
Key Words: embryo transfer, pregnancy, dairy cattle