Reproductive performance of a semi-automated insemination system technology in sows

Kebb Borstnez; Janine Camargo; Maiko Giorgi Philippe; Jean Carlo Volpato Faccin; Vanessa Peripolli; Ivan Bianchi; Ricardo Zanella; Mariana Groke Marques

doi:10.1590/1984-3143-AR2025-0146

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Reproductive performance of a semi-automated insemination system technology in sows

Kebb Borstnez; Janine Camargo; Maiko Giorgi Philippe; Jean Carlo Volpato Faccin; Vanessa Peripolli; Ivan Bianchi; Ricardo Zanella; Mariana Groke Marques

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2025-0146 Anim Reprod, vol.23, n3, e20250146, 2026

PDF

Downloads: 0

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.

Keywords

swine reproduction, management, pig farming, breeding efficiency, labor optimization, litter size

References

AGRINESS. Relatório anual: os melhores da suinocultura [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 25]. Available from: https://melhores.agriness.com/relatorio/

Belstra B. On-farm semen receiving, storage, and use for a successful AI program. In: Proceedings of the North Carolina Healthy Hogs Seminar; 2007; Clinton, NC, USA. Raleigh: North Carolina Swine Veterinary Group; 2007.

Bortolozzo FP, Menegat MB, Mellagi APG, Bernardi ML, Wentz I. New artificial insemination technologies for swine. Reprod Domest Anim. 2015;50(1, Suppl 2):80-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12544. PMid:26174923.

Bortolozzo FP, Zanin GP, Ulguim RD, Mellagi APG. Managing reproduction in hyperprolific sow herds. Animals. 2023;13(11):1842. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111842. PMid:37889779.

Camargo J, Jorge-Neto PN, Madruga ÉL, Oliveira MGD, Fruhling G, Braga JV, Poletto R, Zanella R. Innovation on swine semen storage: bacteriostatic coating vs. conventional blister in commercial swine semen production. AgriEngineering. 2025;7(10):338. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7100338.

Fabino R No, Sousa JPB, Costa LFC, Marques DP, Oliveira ILS, Silva ICA, Godoy MM, Pessoa FOA. Aspectos do manejo reprodutivo de suínos. Colloq Agrar. 2017;13(2):41-50. https://doi.org/10.5747/ca.2017.v13.nesp2.000207.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO. Crops and livestock data [Internet]. Rome: FAO; 2021 [cited 2024 Jul 23]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data

Islam R, Kumar S. Reproductive management of breeding pigs and artificial insemination. In: Gupta VK, Phand S, Kar P, Attupuram NM, Islam R, Das S, editors. Better livelihoods through scientific pig husbandry. Hyderabad: ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig & National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management; 2024. p. 27-36.

Jung M, Rudiger K, Schulze M. In vitro measures for assessing boar semen fertility. Reprod Domest Anim. 2015;50(S2, Suppl 2):20-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12533. PMid:26174915.

Knox RV. Impact of swine reproductive technologies on pig and global food production. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;752:131-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8887-3_7. PMid:24170358.

Knox RV. Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology. 2016;85(1):83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.07.009. PMid:26253434.

Koketsu Y, Tani S, Iida R. Factors for improving reproductive performance of sows and herd productivity in commercial breeding herds. Porcine Health Manag. 2017;3(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-016-0049-7. PMid:28405457.

Langendijk P, Soede NM, Kemp B. Uterine activity, sperm transport, and the role of boar stimuli around insemination in sows. Theriogenology. 2005;63(2):500-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.027. PMid:15626413.

Li J, Zhao W, Zhu J, Wang S, Ju H, Chen S, Basioura A, Ferreira-Dias G, Liu Z. Temperature elevation during semen delivery deteriorates boar sperm quality by promoting apoptosis. Animals. 2023;13(20):203. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13203203. PMid:37893927.

Lopez Rodriguez A, van Soom A, Arsenakis I, Maes D. Boar management and semen handling factors affect the quality of boar extended semen. Porcine Health Manag. 2017;3(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-017-0062-5. PMid:28770098.

Lucca MS, Ulguim RR, Bortolozzo FP, Wentz I, Rocha JC, de Souza MCD, Escobar RV, Calderam K, Quadros PI Fo, Marcos RA. Reproductive performance of sows inseminated with semen doses stored for up to seven days in long-term extender in a field condition. Anim Reprod. 2020;17(1):e20190121. https://doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2019-0121. PMid:32368281.

Mahfuz S, Mun H-S, Dilawar MA, Yang C-J. Applications of smart technology as a sustainable strategy in modern swine farming. Sustainability. 2022;14(5):2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052607.

Marić K, Gvozdanović K, Djurkin Kušec I, Kušec G, Margeta V. Smart pig farms: integration and application of digital technologies in pig production. Agriculture. 2025;15(9):937. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090937.

Maside C, Recuero S, Salas-Huetos A, Ribas-Maynou J, Yeste M. Animal board invited review: an update on the methods for semen quality evaluation in swine - from farm to the lab. Animal. 2023;17(3):100720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.100720. PMid:36801527.

Mellagi APG, Will KJ, Quirino M, Bustamante-Filho IC, Ulguim RD, Bortolozzo FP. Update on artificial insemination: Semen, techniques, and sow fertility. Mol Reprod Dev. 2023;90(7):601-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.23643. PMid:36063484.

Menezes TA, Mellagi APG, Oliveira GS, Bernardi ML, Wentz I, Ulguim RR, Bortolozzo FP. Antibiotic-free hypothermic storage of boar semen in Androstar +5 extender results in similar fertility results compared to semen stored at 17 °C in extender with antibiotic content. Anim Reprod Sci. 2016;149:131-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.03.003. PMid:32259750.

Pezo F, Romero F, Zambrano F, Sánchez RS. Preservation of boar semen: an update. Reprod Domest Anim. 2019a;54(3):423-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13389. PMid:30536928.

Pezo F, Romero F, Zambrano F, Sánchez RS. Preservation of boar semen: an update. Reprod Domest Anim. 2019b;54(3):423-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13389. PMid:30536928.

Rath D. Low dose insemination in the sow: a review. Reprod Domest Anim. 2002;37(4):201-5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0531.2002.00377.x. PMid:12173984.

Robinson JAB, Buhr MM. Impact of genetic selection on management of boar replacement. Theriogenology. 2005;63(2):668-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.040. PMid:15626424.

Rodríguez-Gil JE, Rigau T. Effects of slight agitation on the quality of refrigerated boar sperm. Anim Reprod Sci. 1995;39(2):141-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(95)01390-L.

Sharifuzzaman M, Mun HS, Ampode KMB, Lagua EB, Park HR, Kim YH, Hasan MK, Yang CJ. Technological tools and artificial intelligence in estrus detection of sows: a comprehensive review. Animals. 2024;14(3):471. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14030471. PMid:38338113.

Shipley CF. Breeding soundness examination of the boar. Swine Health Prod. 1999;7(3):117-20.

Sterle J, Safranski T. Artificial insemination in swine: breeding the female [Internet]. University of Missouri; 1997 [cited 2024 Jul 23] (No. G2312). Available from: https://extension.missouri.edu/publications/g2312

Sun H, Palaoag TD, Quan Q. Design of pig farm environment regulation and video monitoring system based on livestock Internet of Things orbital inspection robot. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communication Engineering and Technology (ICCET); 2024; Tokyo, Japan. New York: IEEE; 2024. p. 25- 30. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCET62255.2024.00011

Viana CHC, Jorge-Neto PN, Marques MG. Inseminação artificial em suínos no Brasil: biotecnologias e atualidades do mercado. Suinocultura Industrial. 2020;42(3):16-21.

Waberski D, Riesenbeck A, Schulze M, Weitze KF, Johnson L. Application of preserved boar semen for artificial insemination: past, present and future challenges. Theriogenology. 2019;137(2):2-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.030. PMid:31186127.

Watson PF, Behan JR. Intrauterine insemination of sows with reduced sperm numbers: results of a commercially based field trial. Theriogenology. 2002;57(6):1683-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)00648-9. PMid:12035978.

Will KJ, Silveira PRS, Musskopf MN, Mellagi APG, Bortolozzo FP, Kummer R, Ulguim RDR. Reproductive performance in gilts following applications of different insemination doses and techniques. Theriogenology. 2021;160:26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.10.030. PMid:33171349.

Submitted date:
10/06/2025

Accepted date:
03/31/2026

Reproductive performance of a semi-automated insemination system technology in sows

Kebb Borstnez; Janine Camargo; Maiko Giorgi Philippe; Jean Carlo Volpato Faccin; Vanessa Peripolli; Ivan Bianchi; Ricardo Zanella; Mariana Groke Marques

Abstract

Keywords

References

Links

Share

Anim Reprod