Artificial Insemination with Low-Dose Semen does not affect Swine Reproductive Performances |
Chung, Ki-Hwa
(Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology)
Lee, Il-Joo (Darby Genetics Inc.) Sa, Soo-Jin (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) Kim, In-Cheul (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) Jung, Byeong-Yeal (Animal Disease Diagnostic Division, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine & Inspection Agency) Son, Jung-Ho (Noah Biotech Inc.) |
1 | Alm K, Peltoniemi O, Koskinen E, Andersson, M. (2006): Porcine field fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm morphology. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41: 210-213, ISSN 0936-6768. DOI ScienceOn |
2 | Althouse GC (2008): Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 43(Suppl. 2):374-378. DOI ScienceOn |
3 | Kim IC, Sa SJ, Kang K, Kim SH, Bae SJ, Kim DS, Kim SJ, Min CS, Son JH, Chung KH (2011): Current status of swine artificial insemination(AI) in Korea. Reprod Dev Biol 35(3):227-232. |
4 | Johnson, Guthrie HD, Lawrence KS, Soede NM, Steverink DWB, Langendijk P, Kemp B (2000): Optimized insemination strategies in swine AI. Pages 185 192 in Boar Semen Preservation IV. L. A. Johnson and H. D. Guthrie, ed. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS. |
5 | Kommisrud E, Paulenz H, Sehested E, Grevle I (2002): Influence of boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 43:49-55, ISSN 0044-605X. DOI |
6 | Kondracki S (2003): Breed differences in semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination in Poland. Pig News and Information 24:119N-122N, ISSN 0143-9014. |
7 | Diemer T, Huwe P, Ludwig M, Schroeder-Printzen I, Michelmann HW, Schiefer HG, Weidner W (2003): Influence of autogenous leucocytes and Escherichia coli on sperm motility parameters in vitro. Andrologia 35:100-105. DOI ScienceOn |
8 | Levis DG, Burroughs S, Williams S (2002): Use of intra-uterine insemination of pigs: Pros, cons & economics. Pages 39-62 in Proc. American Assoc. of Swine Vet. Kansas City, MO. |
9 | Maroto Martí LO, Munoz EC, Cupere FD, Driessche EV, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodríuez JM, Beeckmans S (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Ani Reprod Sci 120:95-104. DOI ScienceOn |
10 | OIE. (2001): Terrestrial animal health code. Chapter 4.6. Collection and processing of porcine semen. http ://www.oie.int/ |
11 | SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 9.3. (2000): SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. |
12 | Steverink DWB, Bouwman EG, Soede NM, Kemp B (1997): The effect of semen backflow on fertilization results in sows. Page 94 in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Pig Reprod. Kerkrade, The Netherlands. |
13 | Xu X, Pommier S, Arbov T, Hutchings B, Sotto W, Foxcroft G (1998): In vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen quality and boar fertility. J of Anim Sci 76:3079-3089. DOI |