When it comes to livestock farming, Uruguay competes fiercely with two of the world’s leading producers, Australia and New Zealand, and even looks to them as role models. However, there is one aspect of the industry in which our country surpasses the Oceanic giant not only in terms of experience but also in terms of volume: in vitro fertilization (IVF) in cattle.
While in 2016, according to the most recent data provided by the International Embryo Transfer Society (IETS), 3,661 embryos were produced via IVF in Australia, 11,579 were generated in Uruguay in 2017, according to the latest information published by In Vitro Brasil – ABS. The use of this technique has expanded so significantly in the country that in the last five years, between 50% and 80% of the animals that won awards at the Rural del Prado were produced as IVF embryos.
Fátima Rodríguez holds a bachelor’s degree in biotechnology from Universidad ORT Uruguay has been working in animal IVF for five years. Through an internship organized by the university, she began conducting research on sheep, and in 2015 she shifted her focus entirely to cattle. Today, with more than 22,000 embryos produced to her credit, she shares her experience from Australia, where she is based.
What are the advantages of bovine IVF over methods such as artificial insemination or natural mating?
There are several techniques aimed at the continuous improvement of animal reproduction, particularly in cattle. The technique I specialize in is IVF. Artificial insemination and the transfer of embryos produced through multiple ovulation (MOET), along with IVF, are among the various reproductive biotechnologies used in animal production.
The various reproductive biotechnology programs aim to increase production and productivity through genetic improvement, shortening the generation interval, and improving reproductive efficiency. IVF offers the significant advantage of being able to utilize the female’s genetics with different bulls, thereby maximizing the number of offspring per selected sire. Additionally, reproduction begins earlier, which reduces the generation interval.
Furthermore, selected cows can be aspirated every 21 days without affecting the quality of the oocytes (immature eggs), and hormonal stimulation is not necessary; in fact, aspiration (a procedure designed to extract oocytes from inside the follicles) can begin before they reach reproductive maturity.
Another advantage is that semen from some bulls with elite genetics can fetch unimaginable prices, ranging from $15,000 to $80,000. While MOET and artificial insemination require at least one semen straw per cow, fertilizing the oocytes of 10 different cows via IVF requires only one semen straw, resulting in greater cost efficiency.
How effective is IVF internationally? Is it used more than other biotechnologies?
According to data from IETS, 632,638 embryos were produced in vivo using MOET in 2016, while in vitro production reached 666,215 embryos.
IVF technology has expanded rapidly in recent years, and not just because of its results. As the methods used improve and competition increases, costs are falling; and, without a doubt, what matters most is that the technology produces more, better results in less time. The investment pays for itself more quickly.
Can the economic impact of this in vitro process on the market be estimated?
To give you an idea, over the past five years, between 50% and 80% of the animals that have won at the Prado are IVF embryos. That’s when the work really pays off, because that’s when the animals’ value skyrockets. In Australia, for example, a Brahman bull produced via IVF recently sold for $350,000.
Today, quite a few ranches are using IVF, because although the investment is a bit higher, the results are seen in a much shorter time frame. In addition, the animals’ value increases significantly, because you’re crossbreeding the best cows with the best bulls. On the other hand, you’re not just inseminating that elite cow—which can only carry one calf every eleven months—but you can distribute those superior genes among several recipient cows and thus produce more calves.
If you apply this process to humans, it's like talking about surrogacy.
Now that you mention it… Is there any kind of ethical debate in your field, similar to what happens with humans?
In the animal world, this is completely commonplace. Artificial insemination has been in use since the 1940s, the MOET technique since the 1970s, and the first embryo created through IVF was born in 1982. In South America, it is completely commonplace.
I took a bioethics course during my second year at ORT, and the topic I chose—without realizing I’d end up getting involved in this field—was IVF in humans and what happens to embryos that are frozen and never claimed. There are so many expectations and emotions at stake when it comes to humans. The animal world is completely different from the human one.
I think each person sets their own ethical limits; I couldn't work with humans or with animal cloning. I wouldn't work with genetically modified organisms either, because you're creating something that isn't natural.
Why is IVF considered a natural method?
All that’s done is remove the egg and the sperm and combine them in a test tube in the lab. It’s incubated for seven days under conditions that mimic the uterus, but there’s no genetic modification. That’s what makes me draw the line: it’s a process that, obviously, involves biotechnology, but it doesn’t alter the animal’s nature. The only difference is that the process takes place outside the body.
How does Uruguay compare to Australia in terms of bovine IVF?
For Uruguay, countries like Australia and New Zealand have always served as benchmarks in terms of production. However, it is only in the last five years that IVF production has really begun to grow in Australia. Latin America, for its part, is a pioneer because it was the first region where IVF began to be performed on a large scale; it serves as a benchmark, and specialists from that region are highly sought after internationally. Uruguay and Argentina are very well positioned.
You’ve lived in Uruguay, Brazil, and Australia. You know firsthand how well-prepared professionals from other countries are—how do you rate the knowledge you’ve been able to bring to ORT?
First and foremost, regardless of your background, attitude is key—being open to learning all the time, being adaptable, and not being afraid to say, “I don’t know this, so I need to look into it.” Otherwise, it’s impossible to succeed in the job market.
On the other hand, even though I already had lab experience before starting the Biotechnology degree program at ORT, I still considered it a huge advantage that you have lab work right from the first semester. You’re always going to make mistakes, but that’s where you get used to using the different instruments.
At the same time, several teachers would present real-life scenarios—such as the pollution of the lake in Parque Rodó—to see how we would solve them. You had to draw on a wide range of knowledge, and there was never just one right answer. What I mean is that some teachers helped us look for alternative solutions precisely to encourage critical thinking and move beyond being mere technicians. It’s essential to really think these things through.
Another advantage of having completed the degree program was being able to bring biotechnological solutions down to earth in terms of costs in two key areas. If you want to move forward with a project, you have to do the math. Are you going to hire an economist when you don’t have the money to carry out the idea? In that sense, the program at ORT offers a very comprehensive education.