Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:44:02.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of embryo transfer in ruminant genetic improvement programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

G Simm
G Simm*
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural CollegeWest Mains Road, EdinburghEH9 3JG
Get access

Extract

Over the course of the last 40 years or so increasingly reliable procedures have been developed for multiple ovulation, embryo recovery and embryo transfer, initially for cattle (see review of Woolliams and Wilmut, 1989) and, more recently, for small ruminants (McKelvey and Robinson, 1986). During this time a number of applications have been proposed or practised. These include uses in (i) within-breed genetic improvement programmes, (ii) the import and export of genetic material (offering potential advantages in economy, animal welfare and disease control), (iii) accelerating breed substitution by multiplication of newly introduced breeds and (iv) conservation of genetic material (by freezing embryos) from valuable individual animals, or from rare or endangered breeds or species. Additionally, there are several new ‘reproductive’ procedures available or being developed for use in animal production (eg. in vitro fertilisation, embryo sexing, cloning, gene transfer) which hinge on the use of embryo transfer. These are discussed in detail by Woolliams and Wilmut (1989) and in the following two papers. The aim of this paper is to examine the first of the applications listed above - the use of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) in within-breed genetic improvement programmes.

Type
Embryo and Gene Manipulation in Farm Animals
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1992 , March 1992 , pp. 6
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1992

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

Broadbent, P.J. 1990. Brit. Cattle Breeders Club Dig., 45 pp. 44–48 Google Scholar
Juga, J. and Maki-Tanila, A. 1987. Acta Agric. Scand. 37: 511–519.Google Scholar
Kalm, E. and Liboriussen, T. 1989. New selection schemes in cattle: nucleus programmes. EAAP Publ. No. 44, Pudoc.Google Scholar
Land, R.B. and Hill, W.G. 1975. Anim. Prod. 21:1–12.Google Scholar
Lohuis, M., Smith, C. and Burnside, E.B. 1990. Proc. 4th Wld. Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. Vol. XIV, pp. 221–224.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. 1990. Proc. 4th Wld. Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. Vol XIV, pp. 259–262.Google Scholar
McKelvey, W.A.C. and Robinson, J.J. 1986. In Annual Report of Studies in Animal Nutrition and Allied Sciences, Rowett Research Institute 41: 9–25 Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T.H.E. 1990. Doctoral thesis, University of Wageningen.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F.W., 1979. Proc. Conf. Euro. Ass. Anim. Prod., Harrogate.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F.W. 1987. Veterinary Genetics. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F.W. and Smith, C. 1983. Anim. Prod. 36: 341–353.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. and Thompson, R. 1990. Proc. 4th Wld. Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. Vol XIV, pp. 275–278.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1984. Res. Dev. Agric. 1: 79–85 Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1986. Anim. Prod. 42: 81–88.Google Scholar
Steane, D.E., Simm, G. and Guy, D.R. 1988. Proc. 3rd Wld. Cong. Sheep Beef Cattle Breeding, Paris, Vol.I, pp. 211–213.Google Scholar
Toro, M., Silio, L. and Perez-Encisco, M. 1991. Anim. Prod. 53: 403–406.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J.A. 1989. Anim. Prod. 49: 1–14.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J.A and Smith, C. 1988. Anim. Prod. 48: 3–30.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J.A. and Wilmut, I. 1989. Anim. Prod. 49: 1–14.Google Scholar
Wray, N.R. and Simm, G. 1990. Proc. 4th Wld. Cong. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. Vol. XV, pp. 315–318.Google Scholar