Estimates of pregnancy outcomes based on selection of bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro

Theriogenology

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 659-670

  Farin, P w ^a   Slenning, B D ^a   Britt, J H ^a,b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cattle; Embryo quality; Evaluators; Model; Pregnancy rates

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; EMBRYO; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FETUS DEVELOPMENT; NONHUMAN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY RATE; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VIDEORECORDING;

ANIMALS; CATTLE; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYONIC AND FETAL DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROBABILITY; VIDEO RECORDING;

ANIMALIA; BOS TAURUS; BOVINAE;

EID: 0033197456     PISSN: 0093691X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00160-0     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Betteridge KJ, Loskutoff NM. Prospects for improving the survival rate of transferred embryos. Mol Reprod Dev 1993;36:262-265.
2. Callesen H, Løvendahl P, Bak A, Greve T. Factors affecting the developmental stage of embryos recovered on day 7 from superovulated dairy cattle. J Anim Sci 1995;73:1539-1543.
3. Farin PW, Britt JH, Shaw DW, Slenning BD. Agreement among evaluators of bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro. Theriogenology 1995;44:339-349.
4. Farin PW, Farin CE. Bovine embryos produced in vivo or in vitro: Embryo survival and fetal development. Biol Reprod 1995;52:676-682.
5. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981;138-159.
6. Greve T, Avery B, Callesen H. Viability of in-vivo and in-vitro produced bovine embryos. Reprod Dom Anim 1993;28:164-169.
7. Hasler JF, Henderson WB, Hurtgen PJ, Jin ZQ, McCauley AD, Mower SA, Neely B, Shuey LS, Stokes JE, Trimmer SA. Production, freezing and transfer of bovine IVF embryos and subsequent calving results. Theriogenology 1995; 43:141-152.
8. Hasler JF, McCauley AD, Lathrop WF, Foote RH. Effect of donor-embryo-recipient interactions on pregnancy rate in a large-scale bovine embryo transfer program. Theriogenology 1987;27:139-168.
9. Keller DS, Teepker G. Effect of variability in response to superovulation on donor cow selection differentials in nucleus breeding schemes. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:549-554.
10. Lindner GM, Wright RW Jr. Bovine embryo morphology and evaluation. Theriogenology 1983;20:407-416.
11. Looney CR, Lindsey BR, Gonseth CL, Johnson DL. Commercial aspects of oocyte retrieval and in vitro fertilization (IVF) for embryo production in problem cows. Theriogenology 1994;41:67-72.
12. Reichenbach HD, Liebrich J, Berg U, Brem G. Pregnancy rates and births after unilateral or bilateral transfer of bovine embryos produced in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1992;95:363-370.
13. Rutledge JJ, Monson RL, Gottfredson RG, Northey DL, Peschel DF, Schaefer DF. Mathematical model for evaluating developmental competency of embryos. Theriogenology 1993;39:301 abstr.
14. Shea BF. Evaluating the bovine embryo. Theriogenology 1981;15:31-42.
15. Sinclair KD, Broadbent PJ. Increasing the efficiency of suckled calf production using embryo transfer technology. Vet Rec 1996;139:409-412.
16. Slenning BD, Wheeler MB. Risk evaluation for bovine embryo transfer services using computer simulation and economic decision theory. Theriogenology 1989;31:653-673.
17. Willett GS, Hillers JK. Analyzing the Economics of Alternative Dairy Embryo Transfer Technology. Agricultural Economics Staff Paper A.E. 94-8, Washington State University, Pullman, 1994;1-24.
18. Wright JM. Nonsurgical embryo transfer in cattle embryo-recipient interactions. Theriogenology 1981;15:43-56.