1. bookVolume 68 (2019): Issue 3-4 (December 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2466-4774
First Published
16 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Effects of Antibiotic Diluent Additives on the Motility Parameters and Morphological Integrity of Boar Sperm During Six Days of Storage

Published Online: 11 Dec 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 68 (2019) - Issue 3-4 (December 2019)
Page range: 65 - 70
Received: 10 Jul 2019
Accepted: 25 Sep 2019
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2466-4774
First Published
16 Apr 2016
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Summary

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of antibiotic diluent additives on the motility and morphological integrity of diluted fresh boar semen during a six-day storage period. A total of 60 insemination doses, originating from two Landrace boars, were examined and allocated to control (C, n=30, diluted with BTS) and experimental groups (E, n=30, diluted with BTS upon antibiotic addition). The treatment applied exerted positive effects on the preservation of progressive motility, percentage of live sperm and HOS test results (70.24 vs. 66.53%, 71.54 vs. 69.77%, 67.35 vs. 64.17% and 64.10 vs. 54.26%;91.15 vs. 90.02%, 88.38 vs. 85.55%, 81.50 vs. 76.13% and 74.53 vs. 68.72%; and 93.35 vs. 92.40%, 91.04 vs. 88.02 %, 84.67 vs. 78.15% and 77.27 vs. 69.44% HOS+ sperm for the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th day of storage, respectively). The results obtained indicate that the treatment applied has a favourable effect on preserving the quality parameters of diluted fresh boar semen during storage, resulting most likely from a reduction of bacterial contamination.

Keywords

Althouse C.G. & Lu K.G. (2005): Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology, 63(2): 573-584.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.031Search in Google Scholar

Althouse G.C. (2008): Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 43: 374–378.10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01187.xSearch in Google Scholar

Althouse G.C., Kuster C.E., Clark S.G., Weisiger R.M. (2000): Field investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology, 53: 1167–76.10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00261-2Search in Google Scholar

Blom E. (1950): A one-minute live-dead sperm stain by means of eosin-nigrosin. Fertility and Sterility, 1: 176-177.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)30125-XSearch in Google Scholar

Bonet S., Briz M., Pinart E., Camps R., Fradera A. et al. (1995): Light microscopy characterization of sperm morphology. Microscopy and Analysis, 9: 29-31.Search in Google Scholar

Bresciani C., Morini G., Bettini R., Bigliardi E., Di Ianni F., Cabassi C.S., Sabbioni A., Parmigiani E. (2013): Reproductive efficiency of a new modified boar semen extender for liquid storage. Livestock Science, 157: 384–388.10.1016/j.livsci.2013.07.005Search in Google Scholar

Briz M. (1994): Microscopical analysis of the ejaculated sperm and the sperm epididymal maturation of Sus domesticus. PhD Thesis, Universitat de Girona.Search in Google Scholar

Briz M.D., Bonet S., Pinart B., Egozcue J., Camps R. (1995): Comparative study of boar sperm coming from the caput, corpus, and cauda regions of the epididymis. Journal of Andrology, 16(2): 175-188.Search in Google Scholar

Bryła M. & Trzcińska, M. (2015): Quality and fertilizing capacity of boar spermatozoa during liquid storage in extender supplemented with different antibiotics. Animal Reproduction Science, 163: 157–163.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.11.005Search in Google Scholar

Buxade C.C. (1984): Ganado Porcino: Sistemas de explotacion y tecnicas de produccion. Mundi-Prensa. Madrid, Spain.Search in Google Scholar

Cerolini S., Maldjian A., Surai P., Noble R. (2000): Viability, susceptibility to peroxidation and fatty acid composition of boar semen during liquid storage. Animal Reproduction Science, 58(1-2): 99-111.10.1016/S0378-4320(99)00035-4Search in Google Scholar

Dahmani Y., Ausejo R., Mendoza N., Yeregui J. (2015): Antibacterial efficiency of Dicol and reduction of antibiotics use in boar semen doses. Reproduction of Domestic Animals, 50 (Supplement 2): 126.Search in Google Scholar

Dias C.P., Castagna, C.D., Reis G.R., Simonetti R., Bortolozzo, F.P., Wentz I., Cardoso M. (2000): Grau de contaminação bacteriana no ejaculado de suínos submetidos a dois métodos de higienização e coleta. Arquivos da faculdade de veterinária UFRGS, 28: 32–40.Search in Google Scholar

Freking B.A., Purdy P.H., Spiller S.F., Welsh C.S., Blackburn H.D. (2012): Boar sperm quality in lines of pigs selected for either ovulation rate or uterine capacity. Journal of Animal Sciences, 90(8): 2515-2523.Search in Google Scholar

Gadea J. (2003): Review: Semen extenders used in the artificial insemination of swine. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(2): 17-27.10.5424/sjar/2003012-17Search in Google Scholar

Gadea J., Selles E., Marco M.A. (2004): The predictive value of porcine seminal parameters on fertility outcome under commercial conditions. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 39(5): 303-308.10.1111/j.1439-0531.2004.00513.xSearch in Google Scholar

Gogol P., Szczesniak-Fabianczyk B., Wierzchos-Hilczer A. (2009): The photon emission, ATP level and motility of boar spermatozoa during liquid storage. Reproductive Biology, 9(1): 39-49.10.1016/S1642-431X(12)60093-XSearch in Google Scholar

Goldberg A.M.G., Argenti L.E., Faccin J.E., Linck L., Santi M., Bernardi M.L., Cardoso M.R.I., Wentz I., Bortolozzo F.P. (2013): Risk factors for bacterial contamination during boar semen collection, Research in Veterinary Science, 95: 362–367.10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.06.022Search in Google Scholar

Holt W., Watson P., Curry M., Holt C. (1994): Reproducibility of Computer-aided Semen Analysis: Comparison of Five Different Systems Used in a Practical Workshop. Fertiliy and Sterility, 62(6): 1277-1282.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57201-XSearch in Google Scholar

Huerta I., Dahmani Y., Ausejo R., Ubeda J.L. (2011): A new tool for control of bacterial contamination in boar semen. Spain. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, pp. 288.Search in Google Scholar

Huo L.J., Ma X.H., Yang Z.M. (2002): Assesment of sperm viability, mitochondrial activity, capacitation and acrosome intactness in extended boar semen during long-term storage. Theriogenology, 58(7): 1349-1360.10.1016/S0093-691X(02)00953-6Search in Google Scholar

Jeyendran R.S., Van der Ven H.H., Perez-Pelaez M., Crabo B.G., Zaneveld L.J. (1984): Development of an assay to assess the functional integrity of the human sperm membrane and its relationship to other semen characteristics. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 70(1): 219-228.10.1530/jrf.0.0700219Search in Google Scholar

Johnson L.A., Weitze K.F., Fiser P., Maxwell W.M.C. (2000): Storage of boar semen. Animal Reproduction Science, 62(1-3): 143-172.10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00157-3Search in Google Scholar

Jotanović S. & Savić Đ. (2017): The Boar. 1st ed. Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina: University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Agriculture.Search in Google Scholar

Knox R.V. (2016): Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology, 85: 83-93.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2015.07.00926253434Search in Google Scholar

Kommisrud E., Paulenz H., Sehested E., Grevle I.S. (2002): Influence of boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 43(1): 49-55.10.1186/1751-0147-43-49176418112071116Search in Google Scholar

Mapeka M.H., Lehloenya K.C., Nedambale T.L. (2012): Comparison of different extenders and storage temperature on the sperm motility characteristics of Kolbroek pig semen. South African Journal of Animal Science, 42(5): 530-534.10.4314/sajas.v42i5.18Search in Google Scholar

Maroto Martín L.O., Muñoz E.C., De Cupere F., Van Driessche E., Echemendia-Blanco D., Rodríguez J.M., Beeckmans S. (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Animal Reproduction Science, 120(1-4): 95-104.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.00820427136Search in Google Scholar

Martín L.O.M., Muñoz E.C., Cupere F., Driessche E.V., Echemendia-Blanco D., Rodríguez J.M.M., Beeckmans S., (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Animal Reproduction Science, 120: 95-104.10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.008Search in Google Scholar

Paquignon M., Bussière J., Bariteau F. (1988): Efficacité des techniques de conservation de la semence de verrat. INRA Production Animales, 1(4): 271-280.10.20870/productions-animales.1988.1.4.4463Search in Google Scholar

Pezo F., Romero F., Zambrano F., Sánchez R. S. (2019): Preservation of boar semen: An update. Reproduction in domestic animals, 54(3): 423-434.10.1111/rda.1338930536928Search in Google Scholar

Rath D., Bathgate R., Rodriguez-Martinez H., Roca J., Strzezek J., Waberski D. (2009): Recent advances in boar sperm cryopreservation. Society of Reproduction and Fertility, Supplement, 66: 51-66.Search in Google Scholar

Sancho Badell S. (2002): Efectes del fotoperiode sobre la qualitat espermatica de mascles porcins Sus domesticus. PhD Thesis. Universitat de Girona.Search in Google Scholar

Santos P.M., Bennemann P.E., Rocha J.C., Reis G.M., Calderam K. (2018): Uso do Dicol® como ferramenta de reducao da contaminacao bacteriana do ejaculado suino: efeito sobre a motilidade espermatica de doses inseminates. PORKEXPO 2018 IX Forum Internacional de Suinocultura. Foz do Iguacu/PR, pp. 305-306.Search in Google Scholar

Schulze M., Ammon C., Rüdiger K., Jung M., Grobbel M. (2015): Analysis of hygienic critical control points in boar semen production. Theriogenology, 83: 430–437.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.10.00425459424Search in Google Scholar

Sone M. (1990): Investigations on the control of bacteria in boar semen. Japan Journal of Animal Reproduction, 36: 23-29.10.1262/jrd1977.36.23PSearch in Google Scholar

Suwimonteeraburt J., Thuwanut P., Singlor J., Chatdarong K., Tummaruk P. (2011): Effect of collection extender (Dicol) on cold stored boar sperm viability and bacterial contamination. Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 41: 173-174.Search in Google Scholar

Ubeda J.L., Ausejo R., Dahmani Y., Falceto M.V., Usan A., Malo C, et al. (2013): Adverse effects of members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on boar sperm quality. Theriogenology, 80:565–70.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.05.02223827823Search in Google Scholar

Vyt P., Maes D., Quinten C., Rijsselaere T., Deley W. Aarts M., de Kruif A., Van Soom A. (2008): Detailed motility evaluation of boar semen and its predictive value for reproductive performance in sows. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift, 77: 291-298.Search in Google Scholar

Waberski D., Weyand A., Seedorf J., Weitze, K.F. (2010): Hygiene measures in boar semen production. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, 38 (Suppl. 1): 1–7.Search in Google Scholar

Waberski D., Riesenbeck A., Schulze M., Weitze K. F., Johnson L. (2019): Application of preserved boar semen for artificial insemination: past, present and future challenges. Theriogenology, 137: 2-7.10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.05.03031186127Search in Google Scholar

Yeste M. (2017): State-of-the-art of boar sperm preservation in liquid and frozen state. Animal Reproduction, 14(1): 69–81.10.21451/1984-3143-AR895Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo