- Email: [email protected]
Effects of automated collection methods on semen quality and economic efficiency of boar semen production
Abstracts / Theriogenology 70 (2008) 1384–1404
(88.3%) collections (P = 0.880). Similar results were recorded for progressive motility (74.7% vs. 74.8%; P = 0.9611). Bacterial contamination was not influenced (P = 0.2644) by collection method, as measured by colonies formed in 24 h after sampling the AC (94.1 2.0) or the glove (97.4 2.0). Neat semen from AutoMate and gloved-hand collection systems formed similar numbers of colonies (19.6 4.4 vs. 28.5 4.5; P = 0.1582). In conclusion, the AutoMate system of boar semen collection reduced the labor requirement by approximately 70% for a single collection. Time during the ejaculation phase of one boar can be used to complete the collection process of a previous collection and begin the next collection. Producers can expect boars to perform efficiently and produce normal quantity and quality of semen when using the AutoMate system. Furthermore, it is expected that AutoMate will also reduce bacterial contamination of the semen and therefore enhance semen quality. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.047
Effects of automated collection methods on semen quality and economic efficiency of boar semen production C. Lellbach 1,2, C. Leiding 1, D. Rath 2, B. Staehr 3 1
Besamungsverein Neustadt/Aisch, Germany Institut fuer Tierzucht Mariensee, FAL, Germany 3 Institut fuer Fortpflanzung landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere Schoenow, Germany 2
Semen quality and economic efficiency of boar automated semen collection systems [‘‘Collectis’’ (Genes Diffusion, 3595 route de Tournai, F-59501 Douai Cedex) and ‘‘Automate’’ (Minitu¨b, Hauptstr. 41, D84184 Tiefenbach)] were compared to the traditional gloved hand method. Over 6 months, 408 semen samples (136 for each collecting method) from 17 Pietrain boars were collected by a rotation principle, changing the collecting method every 8 weeks. The semen was diluted in BTS and stored at 17 8C for 5 d. Standard sperm analysis (volume, concentration, motility estimation) was carried out in the local boar station laboratory. Additionally, on the day of collection, as well as 48 and 96 h later, each ejaculate was tested by a computer assisted sperm motion analyser (SpermVision1, Minitu¨b) 30 and 180 min after incubation at 37 8C (ThermoResistance Test). Concentration was measured by a particle counter (NucleoCounter, Chemometec). Acrosome status was verified microscopically in fixed samples 48 and 96 h after collection. Quality and
1389
quantity of bacterial content was determined from each ejaculate using a standard culture plate system (Institute of Microbiology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover). Economic efficiency was evaluated at the ‘‘Institute for Agricultural Economy’’ Munich by analysing the economy of scale (different quantities of ordered semen tubes per week, considering both fixed and variable costs). First results revealed a high homogeneity among ejaculates within each boar on the one hand and collecting method on the other. Each of the three collection methods produced high-quality semen for AI, with similar sperm motility. Bacterial contamination was lower when collected by ‘‘Automate’’ and ‘‘Collectis’’ than the hand method (P < 0.001), whereas concentration was higher (P = 0.005) by hand (0.384 billion/mL) than by ‘‘Automate’’ or ‘‘Collectis’’ (0.349 and 0.341 billion/mL, respectively). The volume of ejaculates collected by ‘‘Collectis’’ averaged 274.2 mL, 228.2 mL by ‘‘Automate’’, and 258.2 mL by hand method (P < 0.001). The total number of cells per ejaculate collected by hand averaged 98.8 billion spermatozoa, 87.0 billion by ‘‘Collectis’’ and 80.8 by ‘‘Automate’’ (P < 0.001). Differences were evident in financial and practical aspects, especially in connecting the penis to the different collecting systems. The number of ejaculates collected per hour differed: the traditional gloved hand method averaged 5.7, ‘‘Collectis’’ averaged 12.6 and ‘‘Automate’’ averaged 8.9 ejaculates collected per hour. Both the ‘‘Collectis’’ and the ‘‘Automate’’ systems had higher costs for equipment, especially for installation of the systems and for necessary disposable products. Considering the ability of collecting more ejaculates per hour and technician as well as the higher costs for one ejaculate, a profit can be expected for AI stations using the new collecting systems if at least 7400 semen tubes are produced per week in case of ‘‘Automate’’ and 9350 semen tubes per week in case of ‘‘Collectis’’. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.048
Effect of collection frequency and extender on sperm quality parameters and membrane lipid peroxidation in boars K.W. Lovercamp, M. Seal, W.L. Flowers North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
The primary objective was to examine changes in ejaculate characteristics, semen quality and membrane lipid peroxidation over time in boars maintained under
(88.3%) collections (P = 0.880). Similar results were recorded for progressive motility (74.7% vs. 74.8%; P = 0.9611). Bacterial contamination was not influenced (P = 0.2644) by collection method, as measured by colonies formed in 24 h after sampling the AC (94.1 2.0) or the glove (97.4 2.0). Neat semen from AutoMate and gloved-hand collection systems formed similar numbers of colonies (19.6 4.4 vs. 28.5 4.5; P = 0.1582). In conclusion, the AutoMate system of boar semen collection reduced the labor requirement by approximately 70% for a single collection. Time during the ejaculation phase of one boar can be used to complete the collection process of a previous collection and begin the next collection. Producers can expect boars to perform efficiently and produce normal quantity and quality of semen when using the AutoMate system. Furthermore, it is expected that AutoMate will also reduce bacterial contamination of the semen and therefore enhance semen quality. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.047
Effects of automated collection methods on semen quality and economic efficiency of boar semen production C. Lellbach 1,2, C. Leiding 1, D. Rath 2, B. Staehr 3 1
Besamungsverein Neustadt/Aisch, Germany Institut fuer Tierzucht Mariensee, FAL, Germany 3 Institut fuer Fortpflanzung landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere Schoenow, Germany 2
Semen quality and economic efficiency of boar automated semen collection systems [‘‘Collectis’’ (Genes Diffusion, 3595 route de Tournai, F-59501 Douai Cedex) and ‘‘Automate’’ (Minitu¨b, Hauptstr. 41, D84184 Tiefenbach)] were compared to the traditional gloved hand method. Over 6 months, 408 semen samples (136 for each collecting method) from 17 Pietrain boars were collected by a rotation principle, changing the collecting method every 8 weeks. The semen was diluted in BTS and stored at 17 8C for 5 d. Standard sperm analysis (volume, concentration, motility estimation) was carried out in the local boar station laboratory. Additionally, on the day of collection, as well as 48 and 96 h later, each ejaculate was tested by a computer assisted sperm motion analyser (SpermVision1, Minitu¨b) 30 and 180 min after incubation at 37 8C (ThermoResistance Test). Concentration was measured by a particle counter (NucleoCounter, Chemometec). Acrosome status was verified microscopically in fixed samples 48 and 96 h after collection. Quality and
1389
quantity of bacterial content was determined from each ejaculate using a standard culture plate system (Institute of Microbiology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover). Economic efficiency was evaluated at the ‘‘Institute for Agricultural Economy’’ Munich by analysing the economy of scale (different quantities of ordered semen tubes per week, considering both fixed and variable costs). First results revealed a high homogeneity among ejaculates within each boar on the one hand and collecting method on the other. Each of the three collection methods produced high-quality semen for AI, with similar sperm motility. Bacterial contamination was lower when collected by ‘‘Automate’’ and ‘‘Collectis’’ than the hand method (P < 0.001), whereas concentration was higher (P = 0.005) by hand (0.384 billion/mL) than by ‘‘Automate’’ or ‘‘Collectis’’ (0.349 and 0.341 billion/mL, respectively). The volume of ejaculates collected by ‘‘Collectis’’ averaged 274.2 mL, 228.2 mL by ‘‘Automate’’, and 258.2 mL by hand method (P < 0.001). The total number of cells per ejaculate collected by hand averaged 98.8 billion spermatozoa, 87.0 billion by ‘‘Collectis’’ and 80.8 by ‘‘Automate’’ (P < 0.001). Differences were evident in financial and practical aspects, especially in connecting the penis to the different collecting systems. The number of ejaculates collected per hour differed: the traditional gloved hand method averaged 5.7, ‘‘Collectis’’ averaged 12.6 and ‘‘Automate’’ averaged 8.9 ejaculates collected per hour. Both the ‘‘Collectis’’ and the ‘‘Automate’’ systems had higher costs for equipment, especially for installation of the systems and for necessary disposable products. Considering the ability of collecting more ejaculates per hour and technician as well as the higher costs for one ejaculate, a profit can be expected for AI stations using the new collecting systems if at least 7400 semen tubes are produced per week in case of ‘‘Automate’’ and 9350 semen tubes per week in case of ‘‘Collectis’’. DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.048
Effect of collection frequency and extender on sperm quality parameters and membrane lipid peroxidation in boars K.W. Lovercamp, M. Seal, W.L. Flowers North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
The primary objective was to examine changes in ejaculate characteristics, semen quality and membrane lipid peroxidation over time in boars maintained under