AETA Education Committee Update

Categories: Catching Up
Tags: ,
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: April 10, 2018

Happy spring (I am writing this as the snow falls) from the Education Committee of AETA. Although I worked the two months of February and March, they seem a blur; influenza and the accompanying ailments following an immunosuppressive virus made me unenthusiastic about getting after the update for the newsletter. As of this date, we have started getting busy with spring work and setting up donors and recipients for show season, and so on. A few things have crossed my mind regarding ET that I will lay out.

  1. IVF is a great technology. It really seems to work well with high-value donors making oocytes to embryos going in fresh to recipients. The frozen IVF embryos are a little more tricky regarding pregnancy rates as compared with frozen in vivo embryos. I think that looking at this difference between frozen embryos IVF versus IVO, the why’s and the how to do’s, is going to keep us busy as an organization with regard to AETA meetings for a while.
  2. In the US beef industry, cryopreservation of embryos is a must given the short breeding seasons and limited opportunities to access the recipients.
  3. We need, as a professional group and industry, to figure out how to cryopreserve IVF blastocysts in a consistent manner that yields consistent results, such as I think we have with cryopreserved in vivo embryos.
  4. I think that practitioners freezing IVF embryos should resolve to only freeze blastocysts. The morulas do not seem to do so well in terms of calve out percentage.
  5. Producers do not, in my opinion, really care about the differences in laboratories, laboratory protocols, and so on. They tend to be results driven. When poor results occur with fresh or frozen IVF embryos, producers do not blame the laboratory—they blame the process.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Comyn, DVM
2018 AETA Education Committee Chair

Comments are closed.

Close Print