The value of microscopic semen motility assessment at collection for a commercial artificial insemination center, a retrospective study on factors explaining variation in pig fertility

Theriogenology

Volumn 77, Issue 7, 2012, Pages

  Broekhuijse, M L W J ^a,b   Sostaric E ^a   Feitsma, H ^c   Gadella, B M ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Varkens KI Nederland   (Netherlands)

^c Institute for Pig Genetics BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Fertility; Genetic line; Porcine; Semen motility; Sperm

Indexed keywords

SUIDAE; SUS;

EID: 84857318199     PISSN: 0093691X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.11.016     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Hanenberg E.H.A.T., Knol E.F., Merks J.W.M. Estimates of genetic parameters for reproduction traits at different parities in Dutch Landrace pigs. Livest Prod Sci 2001, 69:179-186.
2. Bloemhof S., van der Waaij E.H., Merks J.W., Knol E.F. Sow line differences in heat stress tolerance expressed in reproductive performance traits. J Anim Sci 2008, 86:3330-3337.
3. Ruiz-Sánchez A.L., O'Donoghue R., Novak S., Dyck M.K., Cosgrove J.R., Dixon W.T., et al. The predictive value of routine semen evaluation and IVF technology for determining relative boar fertility. Theriogenology 2006, 66:736-748.
4. Baker F.N., Cragle R.G., Salisbury G.W., Vandemark N.L. Spermatozoan velocities in vitro; a simple method of measurement. Fertil Steril 1957, 8:149-155.
5. Tardif S., Laforest J.P., Cormier N., Bailey J.L. The importance of porcine sperm parameters on fertility in vivo. Theriogenology 1999, 52:447-459.
6. Holt C., Holt W.V., Moore H.D., Reed H.C., Curnock R.M. Objectively measured boar sperm motility parameters correlate with the outcomes of on-farm inseminations: results of two fertility trials. J Androl 1997, 18:312-323.
7. Flowers W.L. Increasing fertilization rate of boars: influence of number and quality of spermatozoa inseminated. J Anim Sci 2002, 80:47-53.
8. Gadea J., Sellés E., Marco M.A. The predictive value of porcine seminal parameters on fertility outcome under commercial conditions. Reprod Domest Anim 2004, 39:1-6.
9. Gadea J. Sperm factors related to in vitro and in vivo porcine fertility. Theriogenology 2005, 63:431-444.
10. Foxcroft G.R., Dyck M.K., Ruiz-Sanchez A., Novak S., Dixon W.T. Identifying useable semen. Theriogenology 2008, 70:1324-1336.
11. Flowers W.L. Management of boars for efficient semen production. J Reprod Fertil 1997, 52:67-78.
12. Donadeu M. Advances in male swine artificial insemination (AI) techniques. The Pig J 2004, 54:110-122.
13. Xu X., Pommier S., Arbov T., Hutchings B., Sotto W., Foxcroft G.R. In vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen quality and boar fertility. J Anim Sci 1998, 76:3079-3089.
14. Baker H.W., Clarke G.N. Sperm morphology: consistency of assessment of the same sperm by different observers. Clin Reprod Fertil 1987, 5:37-43.
15. Janett F., Fuschini E., Keo S., Hässig M., Thun R. Seasonal changes of semen quality in the boar. Reprod Domest Anim 2005, 40:356.
16. Hancock J.L., Hovel G.L.R. The collection of boar semen. Vet Rec 1959, 71:664-665.
17. Hansen C., Vermeiden T., Vermeiden J.P., Simmet C., Day B.C., Feitsma H. 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 2006, 66:2188-2194.
18. Steverink D.W., Soede N.M., Bouwman E.G., Kemp B. Influence of insemination-ovulation interval and sperm cell dose on fertilization in sows. J Reprod Fertil 1997, 111:165-171.
19. Steverink D.W.B., Soede N.M., Kemp B. Registration of oestrus duration can help to improve insemination strategies at commercial farms. Reprod Domest Anim 1999, 34:330-333.
20. Langendijk P., Soede N.M., Kemp B. Uterine activity, sperm transport, and the role of boar stimuli around insemination in sows. Theriogenology 2005, 63:500-513.
21. Amann R.P. Can the fertility potential of a seminal sample be predicted accurately?. J Androl 1989, 10:89-98.
22. Gadea J., Matás C., Lucas X. Prediction of porcine semen fertility by homologous in vitro penetration (hIVP) assay. Anim Reprod Sci 1998, 54:95-108.
23. Juonala T., Lintukangas S., Nurttila T., Andersson M. Relationship between semen quality and fertility in 106 AI boars. Reprod Domest Anim 1998, 33:155-158.
24. Broekhuijse M.L.W.J., Feitsma H., Gadella B.M. Field data analysis of boar semen quality. Reprod Dom Anim 2011, 46:59-63.
25. Johnson L.A., Weitze K.F., Fiser P., Maxwell W.M. Storage of boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2000, 62:143-172.
26. Rodríguez-Martínez H. Laboratory semen assessment and prediction of fertility: still utopia?. Reprod Domest Anim 2003, 38:312-318.
27. Foote R.H. Fertility estimation: a review of past experience and future prospects. Anim Reprod Sci 2003, 75:119-139.
28. Kommisrud E., Paulenz H., Sehested E., Grevle I.S. Influence of boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta Vet Scand 2002, 43:49-55.
29. Kondracki S. Breed differences in semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination in Poland. Pig News Inf 2003, 24:119-122.
30. Sonderman J.P., Luebbe J.J. Semen production and fertility issues related to differences in genetic lines of boars. Theriogenology 2008, 70:1380-1383.
31. Smital J. Effects influencing boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2009, 110:335-346.
32. Oh S.H., See M.T., Long T.E., Galvin J.M. Genetic correlations between boar semen traits. J Anim Sci 2003, 81:317.
33. Kennedy B.W., Wilkins J.N. Boar, breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Can J Anim Sci 1984, 64:833-843.
34. Popwell J.M., Flowers W.L. Variability in relationships between semen quality and estimates of in vivo and in vitro fertility in boars. Anim Reprod Sci 2004, 81:97-113.
35. Knox R.V. The anatomy and physiology of sperm production in boars; 2006 2006, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, Champaign-Urbana. http://www.ansci.uiuc.edu/swinerepronet/index.cfm.
36. Jorgensen N., Auger J., Giwercman A., Irvine D., Jensen T., Jouannet P., et al. Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int J Androl 1997, 4:201-208.
37. Tejerina F., Buranaamnuay K., Saravia F., Wallgren M., Rodriguez-Martinez H. Assessment of motility of ejaculated, liquid-stored boar spermatozoa using computerized instruments. Theriogenology 2008, 69:1129-1138.
38. Verstegen J., Iguer-ouada M., Onclin K. Computer assisted semen analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology 2002, 57:149-179.
39. Yeung C.H., Cooper T.G., Nieschlag E. A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. Fertil Steril 1997, 67:1156-1158.
40. Vyt P., Maes D., Rijsselaere T., Dejonckheere E., Castryck F., Van Soom A. Motility assessment of porcine spermatozoa: a comparison of methods. Reprod Dom Anim 2004, 39:447-453.
41. Knuth U.A., Neuwinger J., Nieschlag E. Bias to routine semen analysis by uncontrolled changes in laboratory environment-detection by long-term sampling of monthly means for quality control. Int J Androl 1989, 12:375-383.
42. Colenbrander B., Kemp B. Factors influencing semen quality in pigs. J Reprod Fertil 1990, 40:105-115.
43. Buhr M.M. Emerging tools in artificial insemination. London swine conference. The pork industry and public issues 2001, 5-6.
44. Cameron R.D., Blackshaw A.W. The effect of elevated ambient temperature on spermatogenesis in the boar. J Reprod Fertil 1980, 59:173-179.
45. Rivera M.M., Quintero-Moreno A., Barrera X., Palomo M.J., Rigau T., Rodríguez-Gil J.E. Natural Mediterranean photoperiod does not affect the main parameters of boar-semen quality analysis. Theriogenology 2005, 64:934-946.
46. Bartness T.J., Goldman B.D. Mammalian pineal melatonin: a clock for all seasons. Experientia 1989, 45:939-945.
47. Murase T., Imaeda N., Yamada H., Miyazawa K. Seasonal changes in semen characteristics, composition of seminal plasma and frequency of acrosome reaction induced by calcium and calcium ionophore A23187 in large white boars. J Reprod Dev 2007, 53:853-865.
48. Smital J., De Sousa L.L., Mohsen A. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Anim Reprod Sci 2004, 80:121-130.
49. Alm K., Peltoniemi O.A., Koskinen E., Andersson M. Porcine field fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm morphology. Reprod Domest Anim 2006, 41:210-213.
50. Ruiz-Sanchez A.L., O'Donoghue R., De Grau A.F., Foxcroft G.R., Dyck M.K. Sperm concentration assessment: gold standard vs. new technologies. Advances in Pork Production 2006, 17.
51. Watson P.F., Behan J.R. Intrauterine insemination of sows with reduced sperm numbers: results of a commercially based field trial. Theriogenology 2002, 57:1683-1693.
52. Rutten S.C., Morrison R.B., Reicks D. Boar stud production analysis. Swine Health Prod 2000, 8:11-14.
53. Wolf J., Smital J. Quantification of factors affecting semen traits in artificial insemination boars from animal model analyses. J Anim Sci 2009, 87:1620-1627.
54. Turner R.M. Tales from the tail: what do we really know about sperm motility?. J Androl 2003, 24:790-803.
55. Turner R.M. Moving to the beat: a review of mammalian sperm motility regulation. J Reprod Fertil Dev 2006, 18:25-38.
56. Clark L.K., Schinckel A.P., Singleton W.L., Einstein M.E., Teclaw R.F. Use of farrowing rate as a measure of fertility of boars. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989, 194:239-243.
57. Saacke R.G. Components of semen quality. J Anim Sci 1982, 55:1-13.
58. Rozeboom K. Emerging reproductive technologies in pig production. London Swine Conference - The pork industry and public issues 2001, 5:6.
59. Broekhuijse M.L., Soštarić E., Feitsma H., Gadella B.M. Additional value of computer assisted semen analysis (CASA) compared to conventional motility assessments in pig artificial insemination. Theriogenology 2011, 76:1473-1486.
60. Didion B.A. Computer-assisted semen analysis and its utility for profiling boar semen samples. Theriogenology 2008, 70:1374-1376.
61. Vyt P., Maes D., Quinten C., Rijsselaere T., Deley W., Aarts M., et al. Detailed motility evaluation of boar semen and its predictive value for reproductive performance in sows. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschr 2008, 77:291-298.