Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Universidade de Lisb...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Efeito do método de inseminação artificial no desempenho reprodutivo de porcas

Authors: Silva, Nuno Filipe Gomes da;

Efeito do método de inseminação artificial no desempenho reprodutivo de porcas

Abstract

Pretendeu-se com este estudo avaliar as vantagens e desvantagens de diferentes metodologias de inseminação artificial disponíveis no mercado em condições de utilização prática de uma exploração de grandes dimensões. Mais concretamente, foram avaliadas as diferenças no que diz respeito aos valores de fertilidade e prolificidade para os diferentes métodos. Os valores de fertilidade encontrados foram de 82,8% para a inseminação dita “clássica”, 89,2% para a inseminação com albardas e de 73,5% para a inseminação com os novos cateteres GEDIS. No que diz respeito à prolificidade os resultados obtidos foram de 11.6  0.711 para a inseminação dita “clássica”, 9.8  0.765 para a inseminação com albardas e de 10.7  0.765 para a inseminação com os novos cateteres GEDIS, no entanto estas diferenças de valores não se revelaram estatisticamente significativas. Quanto às diferenças no que diz respeito ao tempo de inseminação os valores obtidos foram 5 min e 23 s para a inseminação dita “clássica”, 5 min e 46 s para a inseminação com albardas e de 2 min e 32 s para a inseminação com os novos cateteres GEDIS. Os elementos recolhidos e presentes neste estudo contribuem para a caracterização das diferentes metodologias, podendo funcionar como uma ferramenta muito útil no momento da escolha do método de inseminação mais adequado de acordo com o perfil de cada exploração seja do ponto de vista económico, de dimensão da exploração e nível de formação do pessoal.

ABSTRACT - The effect of the method of artificial insemination in the reproductive performance in sows. The main aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of artificial insemination, available in the market and adequate to the practical use in a large dimensions farm. The differences concerning fertility and prolificacy values of each method were, in fact, the main parameters to evaluate. The results concerning fertility values were the following: 82,8% for classic A.I. ; 89,2% for dose hangers A.I. method; 73,5% for the new GEDIS cathethers method. The results respecting prolificacy were 11.6  0.711 for classic A.I., 9.8  0.765 for A.I. with dose hangers and 10.7  0.765 for the new GEDIS catheters. However, these differences of values did not reveal statistically relevant. In what concerns the differences related to the time of insemination, the results were 5 min and 23 s for classic A.I., 5 min and 46 s for A.I. with dose hangers and 2 min for the new GEDIS catheters. The resulting data of this study contribute to the characterization of the different methods and they can work as very useful tools, when choosing the most adequate method of artificial insemination, according to each farm profile, both in terms of economic capacity, dimension and staff´s formation level.

Dissertação de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina Veterinária

Country
Portugal
Related Organizations
Keywords

Fertilidade, Cateteres GEDIS, Fertility, Suínos, Prolificidade, Prolificacy, Pigs, GEDIS catheters, Inseminação artificial, Artificial insemination

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green