Comparative efficacy of certain extenders on preservation of liquid boar semen

J KAUR; A K SINGH; S S DHINDSA; P SINGH; S K DAS

doi:10.56093/ijans.v93i9.116312

Authors

J KAUR Civil Veterinary Hospital (CVH), Cheema, Barnala
A K SINGH Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana
S S DHINDSA Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India
P SINGH Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India
S K DAS Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v93i9.116312

Keywords:

Boar semen, Extender, Liquid preservation, Sperm attributes

Abstract

This study was carried out to compare the efficacy of certain liquid semen extenders for boar semen preservation. Semen ejaculates (n=30) from three boars (one ejaculate/boar/week) stationed at University pig farm, Ludhiana were collected using dummy sow and extended (1:4) in lactose-sodium salt of EDTA-Egg yolk (LSEEY); glucose sodium salt of EDTA-potassium sodium tartrate-sodium citrate (GEPS); and Modena (MOD). The extended semen was kept at 17°C up to 120 h in a BOD incubator. The semen was assessed for various sperm characteristics and lipid peroxidation at 0, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h of preservation. The results revealed significantly higher percentage of sperm motility, viability, plasma membrane integrity and acrosome integrity in semen extended with MOD than
in GEPS and LSEEY at different preservation times. The mean percentage of in vitro capacitation/acrosome reacted spermatozoa was significantly higher in MOD as compared to GEPS and LSEEY at 96 h and 120 h of storage period. In all the extenders, the mean percentage of most sperm attributes decreased progressively as the storage period increased. Correspondingly, the MDA levels were lower in MOD than in their contemporary extenders at all hours of preservation. In conclusion, Modena exhibited improved sperm parameters and reduced oxidative stress for liquid preservation of boar semen.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bielas W, Niżański W, Partyka A, Rząsa A and Mordak R. 2017. Effect of long-term storage in Safe Cell+ extender on boar sperm DNA integrity and other key sperm parameters. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 59(1): 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-017-0325-9

Bucak M N, Sarıözkan S, Tuncer P B, Sakin F, Ateşşahin A, Kulaksız R and Çevik M. 2010. The effect of antioxidants on post-thawed Angora goat (Capra hircus ancryrensis) sperm parameters, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant activities. Small Ruminant Research 89(1): 24–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.11.015

Cerolini S, Maldjian A, Surai P and Noble R. 2000. Viability, susceptibility to peroxidation and fatty acid composition of boar semen during liquid storage. Animal Reproduction Science 58(1): 99–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4320(99)00035-4

Chutia T, Biswas R K, Tamuli M K, Sinha S, Goswami J, Deka B C, Banik S and Kayastha R B. 2014. Efficacy of different extenders in preservation of liquid hampshire boar semen at 15°C. Indian Journal of Animal Research 48(5): 496–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-0555.2014.00018.1

Conejo-Nava J, Fierro R, Gutierrez C G and Betancourt M. 2003. Membrane status and in vitro capacitation of porcine sperm preserved in long-term extender at 16°C. Archives of Andrology 49(4): 287–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01485010390204931

De Ambrogi M, Ballester J, Saravia F, Caballero I, Johannisson A, Wallgren M, Anderson M and Rodriguez‐Martinez H. 2006. Effect of storage in short‐and long‐term commercial semen extenders on the motility, plasma membrane and chromatin integrity of boar spermatozoa. International Journal of Andrology 29(5): 543–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00694.x

Flores E, Cifuentes D, Fernández-Novell J M, Medrano A, Bonet S, Briz M D and Rodríguez-Gil J E. 2008. Freeze-thawing induces alterations in the protamine-1/DNA overall structure in boar sperm. Theriogenology 69(9): 1083–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.01.022

Frydrychová S, Čeřovský J, Lustyková A and Rozkot M. 2010. Effects of long-term liquid commercial semen extender and storage time on the membrane quality of boar semen. Czech Journal of Animal Science 55(5): 160–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/62/2009-CJAS

Kaeoket K, Srisowanna T, Wichaidit U, Chanapiwat P and Manee S. 2010. Comparative study on six different long term commercial extenders for fresh boar semen. The Thai Journal of Veterinary Medicine 40(3): 257–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56808/2985-1130.2235

Karunakaran M, Chakurkar E B, Ratnakaran U, Naik P K, Mondal M, Mondal A and Singh N P. 2017. Characteristics of boar semen preserved at liquid state. Journal of Applied Animal Research 45(1): 217–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1150848

Kumaresan A, Kadirvel G, Bujarbaruah K M, Bardoloi R K, Das A, Kumar S and Naskar S. 2009. Preservation of boar semen at 18oC induces lipid peroxidation and apoptosis like changes in spermatozoa. Animal Reproduction Science 110(1): 162–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.01.006

Mapeka M H, Lehloenya K C and Nedambale T I. 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): 530–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v42i5.18

Saikia T, Ahmed K, Tamuli M K and Ahmed N. 2016. Effect of different extenders on the quality of boar semen during preservation at 15°C and 5°C. Theriogenology Insight 6(1): 73–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2277-3371.2016.00010.3

Sangma T F M, Ahmed K, Choudhury M D, Zaman G U, Ahmed N and Das A. 2020. Comparative efficacy of three extenders on quality of boar semen during preservation at 15°C. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 90(3): 375–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i3.102439

Waberski D, Henning H and Petrunkina A M. 2011. Assessment of storage effects in liquid preserved boar semen. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 46(2): 45–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01836.x

Waterhouse K E, De Angelis P M, Haugan T, Paulenz H, Hofmo P and Farstad W. 2004. Effects of in vitro storage time and semen-extender on membrane quality of boar sperm assessed by flow cytometry. Theriogenology 62(9): 1638–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.03.001