Effect of certain extenders on semen quality of boars during preservation at 17°C


Abstract views: 69 / PDF downloads: 80

Authors

  • S KUMAR Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004 India
  • A K SINGH Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab
  • 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

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v93i8.120155

Keywords:

Boar, Extender, Liquid preservation, Semen, Sperm characteristics

Abstract

The present study was designed to determine the effect of three selected extenders on liquid preservation of boar semen at 17°C. Ejaculates (30) were collected from three boars (one ejaculate/boar/week) housed at University pig farm, Ludhiana using dummy sow. Only ejaculates having >70% initial progressive motility were extended in Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS), Safe Cell (SFC) and Tris-Egg Yolk (TEY) extenders in the ratio 1:4 and preserved in a BOD incubator at 17°C for 120 h. The semen was evaluated for different sperm attributes and lipid peroxidation (MDA) at 0, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h of preservation. The mean percentage of sperm motility, viability,
plasma membrane integrity and acrosome integrity were significantly higher in BTS as compared to SFC and TEY at different hours of storage period. At 120 h of preservation, highest percentage of in vitro capacitation/acrosome reaction was seen in semen stored in BTS followed by SFC and lowest in TEY after 6 h of incubation. Eventually, significantly lower levels of MDA were noticed in semen extended in BTS than in their contemporary extenders (SFC and TEY) at 96 and 120 h of storage period. The mean percentage of most sperm parameters decreased gradually from day of collection (0 h) up till 120 h in all the extenders. In conclusion, Beltsville Thawing Solution was better than Safe Cell and Tris-Egg Yolk extenders in liquid preservation of boar semen at 17oC owing to improved sperm
characteristics and reduced oxidative stress.

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

Bresciani C, Morini G, Bettini R, Bigliardi E, Di Ianni F, Cabassi C S and Parmigiani E. 2013. Reproductive efficiency of a new modified boar semen extender for liquid storage. Livestock Science 157(1): 384–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.07.005

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

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

Dimitrov S, Atanasov V, Dichlyanova E and Petrova R. 2009. Comparison of three commercial diluents for short-term storage of boar semen. Trakia Journal of Sciences 7(1): 58–72.

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

Gadea J. 2003. Semen extenders used in the artificial insemination of swine. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2: 17–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2003012-17

Govindasamy K, Ponraj P, Thulasiraman S, Andonissamy J, Naskar S, Das A, Hasin D and Bhaishya S K. 2016. Efficacy of different extenders on sperm characteristics and fertility in crossbred pigs of North-Eastern India. Veterinarski Archiv 86(4): 515–28.

Igboeli G. 1970. A tris-buffered egg yolk extender for boar semen. Journal of Animal Science 30(4): 569–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1970.304569x

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 18°C 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

Lalrintluanga K, Deka B C, Nath K C, Hmar L, Bhuyan D and Biswas R K. 2016. Effect of different extenders on the quality of boar semen during preservation at 18°C. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies: 3(1): 224–32.

Lange-Consiglio A, Meucci A and Cremonesi F. 2013. Fluorescent multiple staining and CASA system to assess boar sperm viability and membranes integrity in short and long-term extenders. Open Veterinary Journal 3(1): 21–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/OVJ.2013.v3.i1.p21

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

Mercadoa E D, Hernandezb M, Sanza E, Rodrigueza A, Gomeza E, Vazquezb J M, Martinezb E A and Roca J. 2009. Evaluation of L-glutamine for cryopreservation of boar spermatozoa. Animal Reproduction Science 115: 149-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2008.11.014

Roca J, Parrilla I, Rodriguez-Martinez H, Gil M A, Cuello C, Vazquez J M and Martinez E A. 2011. Approaches towards efficient use of boar semen in the pig industry. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 46: 79–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01828.x

Sa S J, Kim I C, Choi S H, Hong J K, Kim D W, Cho K H and Park J C. 2013. Effects of storage in different commercial semen extenders on sperm motility, viability and membrane integrity of Korean native boar spermatozoa. Journal of Embryo Transfer 28(4): 349–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12750/JET.2013.28.4.349

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

Saravia F, Hernandez M, Wallgren M, Johanisson A and Rodriguez-Martinez H. 2007. Controlled cooling during semen cryopreservation does not induce capacitation of spermatozoa from two portions of the boar ejaculate. International Journal of Andrology 30(6): 485–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2006.00741.x

Waberski D, Petrunkina A M and Topfer-Petersen E. 2008. Can external quality control improve pig AI efficacy? Theriogenology 70: 1346–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.006

Downloads

Submitted

2022-01-14

Published

2023-08-31

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

KUMAR, S., SINGH, A. K., DHINDSA, S. S., & SINGH, P. (2023). Effect of certain extenders on semen quality of boars during preservation at 17°C. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 93(8), 783–787. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v93i8.120155
Citation