Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T02:10:21.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Embryo mortality and its prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

A R Peters*
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal and Equine Medicine and Surgery Royal Veterinary College Boltons Park Farm Potters Bar Herts EN6 1NB UK
Get access

Extract

The economic and biological significance of embryo mortality in cattle is well recognised. About 90% or more ova are fertilised at oestrus but only about 55% of dairy cows calve to first insemination (reviewed by Sreenan and Diskin, 1985). Of this 35% post fertilisation loss, most (25-30%) occurs within a cycle length therefore not affecting the time of return to the subsequent oestrus. It is also accepted that the maintenance of early pregnancy requires the secretion of progesterone by a viable corpus luteum and that premature luteolysis is the major cause of embryonic loss during these early days of pregnancy.

The corpus luteum forms after ovulation from the cells of the granulosa and theca interna layers of the ovarian follicle. These are thought to differentiate into the large and small luteal cells respectively (Smith et al., 1994). The large cells secrete progesterone and oxytocin and are responsive to prostaglandin E whilst the small ones secrete progesterone and are responsive to LH (reviewed by Wiltbank, 1994).

Type
Dairy Cow Reproduction
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barros, et al. (1992) J. Anim. Sci. 70,1471.10.2527/1992.7051471xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diskin, and Sreenan, (1986) In ‘Embryo mortality in farm animals’ pl42, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Drew, and Peters, (1994) Vet. Rec. 134, 267.10.1136/vr.134.11.267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginther, et al. (1989) J. Reprod. Fert. 87, 223.10.1530/jrf.0.0870223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmer, et al. (1989) J. Reprod. Fert. 87, 89.10.1530/jrf.0.0870089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jubb et al. (1990) Austr. Vet. J. 67, 359.10.1111/j.1751-0813.1990.tb07402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, et al. (1992) J. Endocr. 135, R5.10.1677/joe.0.135R005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, et al. (1991) J. Reprod. Fert. suppl.43, 304.Google Scholar
Mann, and Lamming, (1992) J. Reprod. Fert. Abstr. series 9, 32.Google Scholar
Mee, et al. (1990) J. Dairy Sci. 73, 1500.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78817-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nephew, et al. (1990) J. Anim. Sci. 68, 2766.10.2527/1990.6892766xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegenthaler, and Martinod, (1991) J. Reprod. Fert. suppl. 43, 49.Google Scholar
Smith, et al. (1994) J. Anim. Sci. 72, 1857.10.2527/1994.7271857xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreenan, and Diskin, (1986) In ‘Embryo mortality in farm animals’ pi, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.10.1007/978-94-009-5038-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, et al. (1990) J. Dairy Sci. 73, 1766.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78855-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltbank, (1994) J. Anim. Sci. 72, 1873.10.2527/1994.7271873xCrossRefGoogle Scholar