Evaluation of The Efficacy of Three Extenders on Boar Semen Quality after Liquid Storage | ||||
| Journal of Applied Veterinary Sciences | ||||
| Article 7, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2025, Page 64-73 PDF (383.37 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/javs.2024.331894.1459 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
V. C. Kemoi   ; I.P. Kashoma ; M. Kichuki
| ||||
| Department of Veterinary Surgery and Theriogenology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3020, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of three commercial semen extenders, Modena, Zorlesco, and Vim on boar sperm quality during liquid storage in tropical Tanzania. Semen was collected from six healthy boars, representing three breeds (Large White, Duroc, and Dupi), and analyzed for motility, viability, acrosome integrity, morphology, and bacterial contamination. Ejaculates with a concentration of ≥40 million sperm/mL and ≥80% motility were selected for the study. Each ejaculate was split and extended with the three extenders, then stored at 17°C, with sperm quality assessed every 24 hours for up to 7 days. Modena demonstrated superior performance across all parameters, particularly in large white boars, maintaining sperm motility at 95.00±3.50% initially and 40.00± 5.67 % by 120 hours. It also preserved viability at 97.00± 0.65 % at 0 hours, decreasing to 37.50±8.67 % by 120 hours. Additionally, Modena was free from bacterial contamination across all breeds, significantly outperforming both Zorlesco and Vim. In contrast, Zorlesco exhibited the poorest performance, with sperm motility dropping from 92.00±4.30 % at 0 hours to 31.50±5.87 % by 120 hours in Large White. It also had the highest bacterial contamination, particularly with Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp., and affected all breeds, with Dupi being the most contaminated. Vim showed moderate performance, particularly for Duroc and Dupi, where motility started at 85.00±13.67 % and 80.00±10.00 % but dropped to 20.00±2.67 % and 25.00±1.30 % respectively, by 120 hours. Microbial analysis revealed that Staphylococcus spp. is the predominant contaminant (42.86%), followed by Pseudomonas spp. (33.33%). These findings highlight the importance of selecting semen extenders tailored to breed-specific needs and challenging environmental conditions, particularly in tropical climates where bacterial contamination and temperature fluctuations pose significant challenges to semen preservation. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Bacterial contamination; Liquid storage; Modena; VIM; Zorlesco | ||||
| References | ||||
|
ALTHOUSE, G. C., KUSTER, C. E., CLARK, S. G., and WEISIGER, R. M., 2000. Field investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology, 53(5), 1167-1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00261-2
ALTHOUSE, G. C., and LU, K. G., 2005. Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology, 63(2), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.031
BEDAIR, M., GABR, S., and ASHOUR, A., 2020. Sperm Characteristics of Holstein Bull Semen Cryopreserve by using Three Various Types of Extenders. Journal of Animal and Poultry Production, 11(12), 549–554. https://doi.org/10.21608/jappmu.2020.161186
BONET, S., BRIZ, M. D., and YESTE, M., 2012. A proper assessment of boar sperm function may not only require conventional analyses but also others focused on molecular markers of epididymal maturation. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 47, 52–64.
BONI, R. 2019. Heat stress, a serious threat to reproductive function in animals and humans. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 86(10), 1307–1323. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.23123
BRYŁA, M., and TRZCIŃSKA, M., 2015. Quality and fertilizing capacity of boar spermatozoa during liquid storage in extender supplemented with different substances. Animal Reproduction Science, 163, 157-163.
BUHR, M. M. 1990. Preservation of boar sperm alters membrane molecular dynamics. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Boar Semen Preservation, 81-93.
FLOWERS, W. 2015. Factors Affecting the Efficient Production of Boar Sperm. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 50(S2), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.12529
FLOWERS, W. L. 2022. Factors affecting the production of quality ejaculates from boars. Animal Reproduction Science, 246, 106840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2021.106840
FRANGEŽ, R., GIDER, T., and KOSEC, M., 2005. Frequency of boar ejaculate collection and its influence on semen quality, pregnancy rate and litter size. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 74(2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb200574020265
FRYDRYCHOVA, S., CEROVSKY, S., LUSTYKOVA, J., and ROZKOT, M., 2010. Effects of long-term liquid commercial semen extender and storage time on the membrane quality of boar semen. Journal of Animal Science, 55, 160-166.
GADEA, J. 2003. Review: Semen extenders used in the artificial insemination of swine. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2003012-17
HANSEN, C., VERMEIDEN, T., VERMEIDEN, J. P. W., SIMMET, C., DAY, B. C., and FEITSMA, H., 2006. Comparison of FACSCount AF system, Improved Neubauer hemocytometer, Corning 254 photometer, SpermVision, UltiMate and NucleoCounter SP-100 for determination of sperm concentration of boar semen. Theriogenology, 66(9), 2188–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.05.020
HENNING, H., PETRUNKINA, A. M., HARRISON, R. A., and WABERSKI, D., 2012. Bivalent response to long‐term storage in liquidpreserved boar semen: A flow cytometric analysis. Cytometry Part A, 81(7), 576-587.
JOHNSON, L. A., WEITZE, K. F., FISER, P., and MAXWELL, W. M. C., 2000. Storage of boar semen. Animal Reproduction Science, 62(1–3), 143–172.
KARAGEORGIOU, M. A., TSOUSIS, G., BOSCOS, C. M., TZIKA, E. D., TASSIS, P. D., and TSAKMAKIDIS, I. A., 2016. A comparative study of boar semen extenders with different proposed preservation times and their effect on semen quality and fertility. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 85(1), 23-31.
KNOX, R. V. 2006. Semen processing, extending and storage for artificial insemination in swine. Dept Anim. Sci. Univ. Ill.
KNOX, R. V. 2016. Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology, 85(1), 83-93.
KOMMISRUD, E., PAULENZ, H., SEHESTED, E., and 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, 49-55.
KONDRACKI, S., IWANINA, M., WYSOKIŃSKA, A., and HUSZNO, M., 2012. Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 81(2), 195–199.
KONDRACKI, S., WYSOKIŃSKA, A., KANIA, M., and GÓRSKI, K., 2017. Application of two staining methods for sperm morphometric evaluation in domestic pigs. Journal of Veterinary Research, 61(3), 345–349. https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.1515/jvetres-2017-0045
KUSTER, C. E., and ALTHOUSE, G. C., 2016. The impact of bacteriospermia on boar sperm storage and reproductive performance. Theriogenology, 85(1), 21-26.
LLAVANERA, M. 2024. Evaluation of sperm quality and male fertility: The use of molecular markers in boar sperm and seminal plasma. Animal Reproduction Science, 269, 107545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2024.107545
LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ, A., RIJSSELAERE, T., BEEK, J., VYT, P., VAN SOOM, A., and MAES, D., 2013. Boar seminal plasma components and their relation with sperm quality. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 194, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.3109/19396368.2012.725120
LUTHER, A. M., NGUYEN, T. Q., VERSPOHL, J., and WABERSKI, D., 2021. Antimicrobially Active Semen Extenders Allow the Reduction of Antibiotic Use in Pig Insemination. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 10(11), 1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111319
LUTHER, A. M., BECKERMANN, C., NGUYEN, T. Q., VERSPOHL, J., and WABERSKI, D., 2023. Growth dynamic and threshold values for spermicidal effects of multidrug-resistant Bacteria in extended boar semen. Microorganisms, 11(3), 788. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11030788
MALMGREN, L., and LARSSON, K., 1984. Semen Quality and Fertility After Heat Stress in Boars. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 25(3), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03547257
MAPEKA, M.H., LEHLOENYA, K.C., and NEDAMBALE, T.L., 2012. Comparison of different extenders and storage temperature on sperm motility characteristics of Kolbroek pig semen. South African Journal of Animal Science, 42(Suppl. 1), 531-534.
MARTÍN, L. O. M., MUÑOZ, E. C., DE CUPERE, F., VAN DRIESSCHE, E., ECHEMENDIA-BLANCO, D., RODRÍGUEZ, J. M. M., and BEECKMANS, S., 2010. Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Animal Reproduction Science, 120(1-4), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.008
MENEGAT, M. B., MELLAGI, A. P. G., BORTOLIN, R. C., MENEZES, T. A., VARGAS, A. R., BERNARDI, M. L., WENTZ, I., GELAIN, D. P., MOREIRA, J. C. F., and BORTOLOZZO, F. P., 2017. Sperm quality and oxidative status as affected by homogenization of liquid-stored boar semen diluted in short- and long-term extenders. Animal Reproduction Science, 179, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.02.003
NGO, C., SUWIMONTEERABUTR, J., PRAPASARAKUL, N., MORRELL, J. M., and TUMMARUK, P., 2023. Bacteriospermia and its antimicrobial resistance in relation to boar sperm quality during short-term storage with or without antibiotics in a tropical environment. Porcine Health Management, 9(1), 21.
PINART, E., and MORRELL, J.M., 2023. Factors affecting boar sperm preservation and quality. Front Vet Sci., 4;10:1218940. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1218940
RIENPRAYOON, C., KLANGNAK, C., ONTON, S., TRETIPSKUL, C., and TUMMARUK, P., 2012. A comparative study on the efficacy of four commercial semen extenders used during the holding time on the qualities of frozen-thawed boar semen. Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 42, 195-200.
ROCA, J., GIL, M.A., HERNANDEZ, M., PARRILLA, I., VAZQUEZ, J.M., and MARTINEZ, E.A., 2004. Survival and fertility of boar spermatozoa after freeze-thawing in extender supplemented with butylated hydroxytoluene. Journal of Andrology, 25, 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02806.x
TELLO-MORA, P., HERNÁNDEZ-CADENA, L., PEDRAZA, J., LÓPEZ-BAYGHEN, E., and QUINTANILLA-VEGA, B., 2018. Acrosome reaction and chromatin integrity as additional parameters of semen analysis to predict fertilization and blastocyst rates. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-018-0408-0
TVRDÁ, E., BUČKO, O., ROJKOVÁ, K., ĎURAČKA, M., KUNOVÁ, S., KOVAC, J., BENKO, F., and KAČÁNIOVÁ, M., 2021. The Efficiency of Selected Extenders against Bacterial Contamination of Boar Semen in a Swine Breeding Facility in Western Slovakia. Animals, 11(11), 3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113320
VYT, P., MAES, D., DEJONCKHEERE, E., CASTRYCK, F., and VAN SOOM, A., 2004. Comparative study on five different commercial extenders for boar semen. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 39, 8-12.
WATSON, P. F., and HOLT, W. V., 2001. Cryobanking the genetic resource: Wildlife conservation for the future? Taylor and Francis. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 158 PDF Download: 108 |
||||
