This review analyzes artificial reproductive technologies and success factors in sheep, enhancing genetic improvement strategies.
Artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) are central to genetic improvement strategies in livestock, yet adoption remains inconsistent across species. In sheep, uptake has lagged behind that of cattle due to species‑specific reproductive biology, variable oocyte and embryo competence following use of exogenous hormones, economic feasibility and inconsistent success rates. This review synthesises the principles, methodological development, and contemporary performance of semen collection and cryopreservation, artificial insemination (AI), multiple ovulation embryo transfer (MOET), and in vitro fertilization and embryo production (IVF) in sheep, and integrates insights from a global survey of commercial sheep artificial breeding providers (68% response rate; N = 41) on the current size and scale of the industry. It also collates data on optimisation studies working to improve success rates in these technologies. Survey data reveal marked heterogeneity in semen processing practices, cryopreservation method, extender use, insemination dose preparation, and oestrus synchronisation protocols. Laparoscopic intrauterine AI remains the predominant technique, yielding a global weighted pregnancy rate of 71%, despite substantial site, sire, and operator‑dependent variation. MOET is widely implemented, producing an average of 6-8 transferable embryos per donor, with fresh embryo transfer outperforming frozen-thawed embryos across global regions. In contrast, IVF in sheep continues to face technical and commercial constraints related to oocyte recovery, in vitro maturation, and blastocyst development. Collectively, this review highlights critical opportunities for standardised semen assessment, optimised hormone protocols, advanced predictive analytics, and targeted commercialisation of ovine IVP systems to enhance reproducibility, efficiency, and genetic gain within the global sheep artificial breeding industry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rickard et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: