The Type of Container and Filling Method Have Consequences on Semen Quality in Swine AI Doses
Keywords:
AI dose, boar, container, spermAbstract
The automatic filling of semen doses for artificial insemination in swine shows economic advantages over the old-style, manual filling. However, no data could be found regarding the impact, if any, of this packing method on semen quality. This study aimed to compare two types of containers for boar semen, namely the automatically-filled tube and the manually-filled bottle, in terms of preserving the quality of boar semen. Five ejaculates from five different boars were diluted with the same extender and then divided in two aliquots. First aliquot was loaded in tubes filled by an automatic machine while the second was loaded manually in special plastic bottles. The semen was stored in liquid state at 17°C, regardless of the type of container and examined daily, for five days of storage by means of a computer-assisted sperm analyzer. Both types of containers maintained the semen within acceptable values, but after five days of storage significant differences (p<0.05) between the container types were observed in terms of all selected kinetic parameters. The tube showed better values for sperm motility and velocity, while the bottle showed superior values for straightness and linearity of sperm movement. The automatically-filled tubes offered better sperm motility in every day of the study. Given the fact that sperm motility is still the main criterion in assessing semen quality in semen production centers, the main conclusion of this study is that the automatic loading in tubes is superior and recommended over the old-style manual loading in bottles.
References
Eriksson B.M, Petersson H., Rodriguez-Martinez H., Field fertility with exported boar semen frozen in the new FlatPack container, Theriogenology, 2002, 58(6), 1065–1079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0093-691x(02)00947-0
Lopes G., Simões A., Ferreira P., Martins-Bessa A., Rocha A., Differences in preservation of canine chilled semen using different transport containers, Animal Reproduction Science, 2009, 112, 158–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.04.003
Brinsko, S., Rowan, K., Varner, D., Blanchard, T., Effects of transport container and ambient storage temperature on motion characteristics of equine spermatozoa, Theriogenology, 2000, 53, 1641–1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0093-691x(00)00304-6
Webb G.W., Arns M.J., Harris M.A., Dekat C.L., Comparison of Two Containers Used for Shipment of Stallion Semen,. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2005, 21(2), 133–137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15232/s1080-7446(15)31182-7
Bogdan A.T., Tratat de reproducție și însămânțări artificiale la suine. Editura Tehnică Agricolă, București, 1999, pp 118-120.
Ciornei Ș.G., Materialul seminal de vier și biotehnologii de reproducție la suine. Editura “Ion Ionescu de la Brad”, Iași, 2012, pp 44-48.
Flowers W.L., Management of boars for efficient semen production, J Reprod Fertil, 1997. 52, 67–78.
Martin-Hidalgo D., Baron F.J., Robina A., Bragado M.J., Hurtado de Liera A., Garcia-Marin L.J., Gil M.C., Inter- and Intra-breed comparative study of sperm motility and viability in Iberian and Duroc boar semen during long-term storage in MR-A and XCell extenders, Anim. Reprod. Sci., 2013, 139, 109-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.04.001
Lenz R.W., Kjelland M.E., Vonderhaar K., Swannack T.M., Moreno J.F., A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer. J Anim Sci. 2011, 89(2), 383-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3056
Runceanu L, Cotea C, Drugociu D, Roșca P, Reproducție, obstetrică și ginecologie veterinară. Ed. “Ion Ionescu de la Brad”, Iași, 2007, pp 164-171.
Kuster C.E., Althouse G.C., The impact of bacteriospermia on boar sperm storage and reproductive performance Theriogenology 2016, 85, 21–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.09.049
Vyt P., Maes D., Sys S.U., Rijsselaere T., Van Soom A., Air contact influences the pH of extended porcine semen, Reprod Dom Anim, 2007, 42, 218 –20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00733.x
Pinto, C., Paccamonti, D., Eilts, B., Fertility in bitches artificially inseminated with extended, chilled semen, Theriogenology, 1999, 52, 609–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0093-691x(99)00156-9
Melo C.M., Alvarenga M.A., Zahn F.S., I. Martin, Orlandi C., Trinque C.L.A., Dell’Aqua J.A. Jr., Papa F.O., Effect of the transport container and cryoprotectant on freezability of equine semen previously cooled for 24 h, Animal Reproduction Science, 2006, 94, 78–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2006.03.093
Maciel A.C., Castro F.S., Pires Neves A., Mattos R.C., Fiala Rechsteiner S., Preliminary results using a new container for cooled stallion semen transport, 6th ISSR Abstracts/Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2012, 32, 475-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2012.06.058
Katila T., Combes G.B., Varner D.D., Blanchard T.L., Comparison of three containers used for the transport of cooled stallion semen, Theriogenology, 1997, 48(7), 1085–1092.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0093-691x(97)00341-5
Holt C., Holt W.V., Moore H.D.M., Reed H.C.B., Curnoc R.M., Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials, J Androl., 1997, 18, 312-323.
Park S., Effects of sow, boar, and semen traits on sow reproduction, Doctoral thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2013.
Budworth P.R., Amann R.P., Chapman P.L., Relationships between computerized measurements of motion of frozen-thawed bull spermatozoa and fertility, J Androl., 1988, 9, 41–54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.1988.tb01007.x
Broekhuijse M.L.W.J., Sostaric E., Feitsma H., Gadella B.M., Application of computer assisted semen analysis to explain variations in pig fertility, J. Anim. Sci., 2012, 90, 779–789.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4311
Hirano Y., Shibahara H., Suzuki T., Takamizawa S., Yamaguchi C., Tsunoda H., Relationships between sperm motility characteristics assessed by the computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) and fertilization rates in vitro, J Assist Reprod Genet, 2001, 18(4), 213-8.
Didion B.A., Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples, Theriogenology, 2008, 70(8), 1374–1376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.014
Schulze M., Ruediger K., Mueller K., Jung M., Well C., Reissmann M.,. Development of an in vitro index to characterize fertilizing capacity of boar ejaculates. Anim Reprod Sci., 2013, 140(1-2), 70–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.05.012
Vyt, P., Maes D., Quinten C., Rijsselaere T., Deley W., Aerts M., de Kruif A., van Soom A., Detailed motility examination of porcine semen and its predictive value towards reproductive performance in sows, Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 2008, 77, 291–298.
Schmidt H., Kamp G., Induced hyperactivity in boar spermatozoa and its evaluation by computer-assisted sperm analysis, Reproduction Research, 2004, 128, 171-179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00153
Chang H., Suarez S.S., Rethinking the relationship between hyperactivation and chemotaxis in mammalian sperm, Biol. Reprod., 2010, 83, 507–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.109.083113
Armon L., Eisenbach M., Behavioral mechanism during human sperm chemotaxis: involvement of hyperactivation, PLoS One, 2011, 6(12), e28359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028359
