ArticleAnimal reproduction2026
Reproductive performance of a semi-automated insemination system technology in sows.
Article in Animal reproduction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial insemination (AI) is a key biotechnology applied to disseminate superior genetics; however, its success depends on skilled labor to ensure accurate and consistent execution. A semi-automated insemination system (SAIS), capable of controlling semen deposition and reproducing the pressure of natural mating, can align AI procedures more closely with the sow's physiological responses. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the use of SAIS in post-cervical AI can improve reproductive efficiency in sows. A total of 449 females were inseminated, with 228 sows assigned to SAIS and 221 to the conventional method (CONV). Groups were balanced for parity, body condition, inseminator, and boar distribution. Sperm quality during storage did not differ between treatments. However, significant differences emerged during AI procedures: the SAIS group required less time to perform AI (18.60 ± 5.65 vs. 22.52 ± 12.38 seconds; P < 0.0001) and presented a lower incidence of semen backflow after AI (43.28% vs. 66.15%; P < 0.0001). The backflow negatively affected conception rate (P = 0.0342), although it did not influence total or live-born piglet numbers. Regarding reproductive performance, conception and farrowing rates were similar between groups. Nevertheless, females inseminated with SAIS have a higher total number of piglets born (16.97 ± 3.38 vs. 15.70 ± 3.91; P = 0.0027) and more live-born piglets (15.79 ± 3.3 vs. 14.46 ± 3.6; P = 0.0016) compared with CONV. Since backflow was not associated with litter size, this improvement cannot be attributed solely to reduced reflux. Instead, factors such as more standardized semen deposition and lower variability between inseminations may have contributed to this improvement. In conclusion, SAIS proved to be a practical and advantageous tool for AI in sows. Its use reduced time, decreased backflow, and increased litter size, representing a promising strategy to enhance efficiency in commercial herds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.