Effect of breed composition on sperm quality of boar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/ma.v29i3.32445Keywords:
swine, spermatozoa, semen, reproduction.Abstract
The assessment of the semen quality is an essential tool to improve the reproductive indexes in swine farms. The motility is the most important parameter that used in the sperm quality evaluation because it is associated with the energy of the spermatozoon. The aim of this research was to determine the influence of breed composition on reproductive variables of sperm quality, kinetics and semen motility in boars. During 2016, 240 ejaculates were collected from 63 boars with a mean age of 24.4±10.9 months. Six racial groups were identified: Duroc (D), Yorkshire (Y), Landrace (L), F1 Pietrain*Duroc (PD) and two genetic lines (LA and LB). The breeds with the highest ejaculate volume presented a higher total number of spermatozoa (P<0.05). The effect of the breed was significant (P<0.05) on sperm kinetics variables except for amplitude of lateral head displacement (ALH, μm). The Landrace breed presented the highest (P<0.05) percentage of static sperm (29.30±1.57). The most relevant differences (P<0.05) for total motility (MTOT) and progressive motility (MP), were presented between L and PD with values of 70.71±1.57; 77.48±1.09 and 51.80±1.97; 59.85±1.37% respectively. Adult boars (≥18 months) had higher volumes of ejaculate and total number of sperm than boars in the intermediate and young ages, however, for velocities (μm/s): curvilinear (VCL), straight line (VSL) and average path (VAP), adult boars only were different (P<0.05) of the boars in-between ages. Four sperm subpopulations (SP) were identified, SP1 (46.83%) characterized by a moderate speed, but of very progressive motility, SP2 (14.78%) with active movement, but not progressive, SP3 (8.45%) with low speeds and progressive path and SP4 (29.94%) with quick movement, but without progressivity.
Downloads
References
Abaigar, T., W.V. Holt, R.A.P. Harrison, and G. del-Barrio. 1999. Sperm subpopulations in boar (Sus scrofa) and gazelle (Gazella dama mhorr) semen as revealed by pattern analysis of computer-assisted motility assessments. Biol. Reprod. 60:32-41. doi:10.1095/biolreprod60.1.32
Adamiak, A., S. Kondracki, and A. Wysokińska. 2010. Influence of season of the year on physical properties of ejaculates from Polish Large White and Polish Landrace boars. Roczniki Naukowe Zootech. 37:159-167.
Amann, R.P., and D.F. Katz. 2004. Reflections on CASA after 25 years. J. Androl. 25:317-324. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02793.X
Bompart, D., A. García-Molina, A. Valverde, C. Caldeira, J. Yániz, M. Núñez de Murga, and C. Soler. 2018. CASA-Mot technology: how results are affected by the frame rate and counting chamber. Reprod Fertil Dev. doi:10.1071/RD17551
Braundmeier, A.G., and D.J. Miller. 2001. The search is on: finding accurate molecular markers of male fertility. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1915-1925. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74633-4
Broekhuijse, M.L., E. Šoštarić, H. Feitsma, and B.M. Gadella. 2012. Application of computer-assisted semen analysis to explain variations in pig fertility. J. Anim. Sci. 90:779-789. doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4311
Burian, F., S. Buchta, V. Řehák, M. Sládek, a I. Schmidt. 1987. Analýza spermatologických ukazatelů kanců plemen bı́lé ušlechtilé, landrase a duroc a hybridnı́ch kanců SL 98 F1, F2 a F3 generace. Živoč. Výr. 32:1097-1103.
Ciereszko, A., J.S. Ottobre, and J. Glogowski. 2000. Effects of season and breed on sperm acrosin activity and semen quality of boars. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 64:89-96. doi:10.1016/S0378-4320(00)00194-9
Conlon, P.D., and B.W. Kennedy. 1978. A comparison of crossbred and purebred boars for semen and reproductive characteristics. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 58:63-70. doi:10.4141/xjas78-009
Cremades, T., J. Roca, H. Rodriguez-Martinez, T. Abaigar, J.M. Vazquez, and E.A. Martinez. 2005. Kinematic changes during the cryopreservation of boar spermatozoa. J. Androl. 26:610-618. doi:10.2164/jandrol.05028
Davila, M.P., P.M. Muñoz, J.M. Bolaños, T.A. Stout, B.M. Gadella, J.A. Tapia, C.B. da-Silvia, C.O. Ferrusola, and F.J. Peña. 2016. Mitochondrial ATP is required for the maintenance of membrane integrity in stallion spermatozoa, whereas motility requires both glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. Reproduction 152:683-694. doi:10.1530/REP-16-0409
Didion, B.A. 2008. Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples. Theriogenology 70:1374-1376. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.014
Dyck, M.K., G.R. Foxcroft, S. Novak, A. Ruiz-Sanchez, J. Patterson, and W.T. Dixon. 2011. Biological markers of boar fertility. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 46:55-58. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01837.x
Dziekońska, A., L. Fraser, and J. Strzeżek. 2009. Effect of different storage temperatures on the metabolic activity of spermatozoa following liquid storage of boar semen. J. Anim. Feed. Sci. 18:638-649. doi:100.22358/jafs/66438/2009
Estrada, E., M.M. Rivera-del-Álamo, J.E. Rodríguez-Gil, and M. Yeste. 2017. The addition of reduced glutathione to cryopreservation media induces changes in the structure of motile subpopulations of frozen-thawed boar sperm. Cryobiology 78:56-64. doi:10.1016/j.cryobiol.2017.07.002
Flores, E., J.M. Fernández-Novell, A. Peña, and J.E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2009. The degree of resistance to freezing-thawing is related to specific changes in the structures of motile sperm subpopulations and mitochondrial activity in boar spermatozoa. Theriogenology 72:784-797. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.05.013
Flores, E., E. Taberner, M.M. Rivera, A. Peña, T. Rigau, J. Miró, and J.E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2008. Effects of freezing/thawing on motile sperm subpopulations of boar and donkey ejaculates. Theriogenology 70:936-945. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.05.056
Flowers, W.L. 1997. Management of boars for efficient semen production. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 52:67-78.
Fraser, L., A. Dziekońska, R. Strzezek, and J. Strzezek. 2007. Dialysis of boar semen prior to freezing thawing: its effects on post-thaw sperm characteristics. Theriogenology 67:994-1003. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.12.002
Gadea, J. 2005. Sperm factors related to in vitro and in vivo porcine fertility. Theriogenology 63:431-444. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.023
Gerfen, R.W., B.R. White, M.A. Cotta, and M.B. Wheeler. 1994. Comparison of the semen characteristics of fengjing, meishan and Yorkshire boars. Theriogenology 41:461-469. doi:10.1016/0093-691X(94)90082-T
Gil, M.C., M. García-Herreros, F.J. Barón, I.M. Aparicio, A.J. Santos, and L.J. García-Marín. 2009. Morphometry of porcine spermatozoa and its functional significance in relation with the motility parameters in fresh semen. Theriogenology 71:254-263. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.07.007
Grieblová, A., E. Pintus, and J. Ros-Santaella. 2017. Integrity of head and tail plasmalemma is associated with different kinetic variables in boar sperm. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 184:218-227. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.07.020
Hoflack, G., G. Opsomer, T. Rijsselaere, A. Van-Soom, D. Maes, A. de-Kruif, and L. Duchateau. 2007. Comparison of computer-assisted sperm motility analysis parameters in semen from Belgian blue and Holstein-Friesian bulls. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 42:153-161. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00745.x
Holt, C., W.V. Holt, H.D. Moore, H.C. Reed, and R.M. Curnock. 1997. Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. J. Androl. 18:312-323. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.1997.tb0195.x
Holt, W.V., and J.W. Van-Look. 2004. Concepts in sperm heterogeneity, sperm selection and sperm competition as biological foundations for laboratory test of semen quality. Reproduction 127:527-535. doi:10.1530/rep.1.00134
Kawęcka, M., A. Pietruszka, E. Jacyno, R. Czarnecki, and M. Kamyczek. 2008. Quality of semen of young boars of the breeds Pietrain and Duroc and their reciprocal crosses. Arch. Tierz. 51:42-54. doi:10.5194/aab-51-42-2008
Kennedy, B.W., and J.N. Wilkins. 1984. Boar, breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64:833-843. doi:10.4141/cjas84-097
Knecht, D., S. Środoń, and K. Duziński. 2014. The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44:1-9. doi:10.4314/sajas.v44i1.1
Knecht, D., S. Środoń, K. Szulc, and K. Duziński. 2013. The effect of photoperiod on selected parameters of boar semen. Liv. Sci. 157:364-71. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.027
Knox, R.V. 2014. Impact of swine reproductive technologies on pig and global food production. In: G.C. Lamb, and N. Di-
Lorenzo, editors, Current and future reproductive technologies and world food production. Springer, NY, USA. p. 131-160.
Kondracki, S., M. Iwanina, A. Wysokińska, and M. Huszno. 2012. Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet. Brno 81:195-199. doi:10.2754/avb201281020195
Kunavongkrit, A., A. Suriyasomboom, N. Lundeheim, T.W. Heard, and S. Einarsson. 2005. Management and sperm production of boars under differing environmental conditions. Theriogenology 63:657-667. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.039
Langendijk, P., N.M. Soede, and B. Kemp. 2005. Uterine activity, sperm transport, and the role of boar stimuli around insemination in sows. Theriogenology 63:500-513. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.027
Leahy, T., and B.M. Gadella. 2011. Sperm surface changes and physiological consequences induced by sperm handling and storage. Reproduction 142:759-778. doi:10.1530/REPP11-0310
Liu, D.Y., G.N. Clarke, and H.W. Gordon-Baker. 1991. Relationship between sperm motility assessed with the Hamilton-Thorn motility analyzer and fertilization rates in vitro. J. Androl. 12:231-239. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.1991.tb00258.x
López-Rodríguez, A., T. Rijsselaere, J. Beek, P. Vyt, A. Van-Soom, and D. Maes. 2013. Boar seminal plasma components and their relation with semen quality. Syst. Biol. Reprod. Med. 59:5-12. doi:10.3109/19396368.2012.725120
Martinez-Alborcia, M.J., A. Valverde, I. Parrilla, J.M. Vazquez, E.A. Martinez, and J. Roca. 2012. Detrimental effects of non-functional spermatozoa on the freezability of functional spermatozoa from boar ejaculate. PLoS ONE 7(5):e36550. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036550
Martínez-Rodríguez, C., M. Alvarez, L. Ordás, C.A. Chamorro, F. Martinez-Pastor, L. Anel, and P. de-Paz. 2012. Evaluation of ram semen quality using polyacrylamide gel instead of cervical mucus in the sperm penetration test. Theriogenology 77:1575-86. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.11.026
Oh, S.A., Y.J. Park, Y.A. You, E.A. Mohamed, and M.G. Pang. 2010. Capacitation status of stored boar spermatozoa is related to litter size of sows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 121:131-138. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.05.019
Oh, S.H., M.T. See, T.E. Long, and J.M. Galvin. 2006. Estimates of genetic correlations between production and semen traits in boar. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 19:160-164. doi:10.5713/ajas.2006.160
Okere, C., A. Joseph, and M. Ezekwe. 2005. Seasonal and genotype variations in libido, semen production and quality in artificial insemination boars. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 4:885-888.
Quintero-Moreno, A., T. Rigau, and J.E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2004. Regression analyses and motile sperm subpopulation structure study as improving tools in boar semen quality analysis. Theriogenology 61:673-690. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(03)00248-6
Robinson, J.A.B., and M.M. Buhr. 2005. Impact of genetic selection on management of boar replacement. Theriogenology 63:668-678. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.040
Savić, R., M. Petrović, D. Radojković, Č. Radović, and N. Parunović. 2013. The effect of breed, boar and season on some properties of sperm. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 29:299-310. doi:10.2298/BAH1302299S
Schinckel, A., R.K. Johnson, R.A. Pumfrey, and D.R. Zimmerman. 1983. Testicular growth in boars of different genetic lines and its relationship to reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 56:1065-1076. doi:10.2527/jas1983.5651065x
Schulze, M., S. Buder, K. Rüdiger, M. Beyerbach, and D. Waberski. 2014. Influences on semen traits used for selection of young AI boars. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 148:164-170. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.06.008
Sellés, E., J. Gadea, R. Romar, C. Matás, and S. Ruiz. 2003. Analysis of in vitro fertilizing capacity to evaluate the freezing
procedures of boar semen and to predict the subsequent fertility. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 38:66-72. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0531.2003.00406.x
Smital, J. 2009. Effects influencing boar semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 110:335-346. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.01.024
Smital, J., L.L. De-Sousa, and A. Mohsen. 2004. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 80:121-130. doi:10.1016/S0378-4320(03)00142-8
Sonderman, J.P., and J.J. Luebbe. 2008. Semen production and fertility issues related to differences in genetic lines of boars. Theriogenology 70:1380-1383. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenoly.2008.08.009
Swierstra, E.E. 1974. A comparison of regular ejaculation with sexual rest on semen characteristics and reproductive organ weights in young boars. J. Anim. Sci. 39:575-581.
Tăpăloagă, P.R., A. Șonea, A. Iancu, and E. Mitrănescu. 2013. Researches regarding age, breed and collecting season influence in quality and quantity boars semen. Sci. Pap. Ser. D. Anim. Sci. 56:161-165.
Tardif, S., J.P. Laforest, N. Cormier, and J.L. Bailey. 1999. The importance of porcine sperm parameters on fertility in vivo. Theriogenology 52:447-459. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00142-9
Tsakmakidis, I.A., A.G. Lymberopoulos, and T.A. Khalifa. 2010. Relationship between sperm quality traits and field-fertility of porcine semen. J. Vet. Sci. 11:151-154. doi:10.4142/jvs.2010.11.2.151
Verstegen, J., M. Iguer-Ouada, and K. Onclin. 2002. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 57:149-179. doi:10.1016/S0093-691X(01)00664-1
Wasilewska, K., and L. Fraser. 2017. Boar variability in sperm cryo-tolerance after cooling of semen in different long-term extenders at various temperatures. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 185:161-173. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.08.016
WHO (World Health Organization). 2010. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GBR.
Wolf, J., and J. Smital. 2009. Effects in genetic evaluation for semen traits in Czech Large White and Czech Landrace boars. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 54:349-358.
Wysokińska, A., S. Kondracki, D. Kowalewski, A. Adamiak, and E. Muczyńska. 2009. Effect of seasonal factors on the ejaculate properties of crossbred Duroc x Pietrain and Pietrain x Duroc boars as well as purebred Duroc and Pietrain boars. Bull. Vet. Inst. Pulawy 53:677-685.
Yeste, M., and M. Castillo-Martín. 2013. Boar spermatozoa within the Uterus. In: S. Bonet et al., editors, Boar reproduction: Fundamentals and new biotechnological trends. Springer, Berlin, GER. p. 101-168.
Žaja, I.Ž., M. Samardžija, S. Vince, I. Majić-Balić, M. Vilić, D. Đuričić, and S. Milinković-Tur. 2016. Influence of boar breeds or hybrid genetic composition on semen quality and seminal plasma biochemical variables. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 164:169-176. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2015.11.027
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
1. Proposed policy for open access journals
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
a. Authors retain the copyright and assign to the journal the right to the first publication, with the work registered under the attribution, non-commercial and no-derivative license from Creative Commons, which allows third parties to use what has been published as long as they mention the authorship of the work and upon first publication in this journal, the work may not be used for commercial purposes and the publications may not be used to remix, transform or create another work.
b. Authors may enter into additional independent contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) provided that they clearly indicate that the work was first published in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (e.g. on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it may lead to productive exchanges and faster and wider dissemination of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
