Perspectives of intrauterine artificial insemination applicability in gilts

Abstract

The application of the intrauterine artificial insemination (IUAI) technique allows optimization of a swine production system due to the reductions in volume and number of sperm cells in the insemination dose, and by reducing the time taken to perform the insemination. However, IUAI is not recommended for gilts due to the difficulty of intrauterine cannula passage through the cervix. This difficulty is associated mainly with the fact that the reproductive tract is smaller in gilts than in pluriparous females. However, few studies have evaluated the application of IUAI in gilts. In these studies, there are variations in approach concerning the definition of the success rate for cannula passage through the cervix, the type of cannula and the body characteristics of the gilts used, making it difficult to extrapolate the recommendation for the use of IUAI in gilts. Considering the evidence that such characteristics influence or even determine the success of the application of IUAI, there is a necessity for an understanding of the influence of these factors in the improvement and later application of the technique. Gilts represent about 15-20% of the breeding group, and the use of IUAI could optimize the processes of insemination on farms. The approach used in this review highlights the aspects that could aid in structuring further studies for improving IUAI in gilts, allowing its use on commercial farms.

Update on artificial insemination: Semen, techniques, and sow fertility

“…Concerning reproductive performance, no differences between CAI and IUAI in gilts were observed in studies, despite the differences between the protocols (Will, Mellagi, et al, 2021). However, the intrauterine cannula insertion rate varies among studies, ranging from 44% (Ulguim et al, 2018) to 91.4% (Ternus et al, 2017).…”

“…In addition, IUAI is well used and highly recommended for pluriparous and primiparous sows, due to a success rate of around 90% for intrauterine cannula insertion in these categories of females (Bennemann et al, 2007; Dallanora et al, 2004; García‐Vázquez, Mellagi, et al, 2019; Mezalira et al, 2005; Sbardella et al, 2014; Watson & Behan, 2002). However, the technique still has limitations in gilts due to the difficulty of cannula insertion through the cervix (García‐Vázquez, Mellagi, et al, 2019; Will, Mellagi, et al, 2021). Thus, considering that gilts represent ~20% of the breeding herd, it is still necessary to maintain both techniques (CAI and IUAI) and both sizes of semen doses in sow farm and boar stud routines.…”

“…Pluriparous sows present a longer and larger cervix, with more connective tissue and fewer muscle fibers than gilts (García‐Vázquez, Llamas‐López, et al, 2019). These features could explain the lower distention capacity and the greater difficulty of intrauterine cannula insertion observed in gilts (Will, Mellagi, et al, 2021). Therefore, IUAI remains challenging and time‐consuming in gilts.…”

“… Note : There was no difference between treatments in any study. Adapted from Will, Mellagi, et al (2021). …”

“…The artificial insemination techniques commercially used are cervical AI (CAI) and IUAI (Will, Mellagi, et al, 2021). Over the years, the development of catheters and cannulas has enabled the AI technique to improve, optimizing the procedure itself, the number of sperm cells, and the volume of the extended semen dose.…”