Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:21:20.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of age on spermiogram of Holstein Friesian × Sahiwal crossbred bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2009

D. K. Mandal ,
M. Kumar  and
S. Tyagi
D. K. Mandal*
Affiliation:
Project Directorate On Cattle, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Post Box No. 17, Grass Farm Road, Meerut Cantt-250001(U.P.), India
M. Kumar
Affiliation:
Project Directorate On Cattle, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Post Box No. 17, Grass Farm Road, Meerut Cantt-250001(U.P.), India
S. Tyagi
Affiliation:
Project Directorate On Cattle, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Post Box No. 17, Grass Farm Road, Meerut Cantt-250001(U.P.), India
*
†E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study was conducted on 94 Frieswal (5/8 Holstein Friesian 3/8 Sahiwal) crossbred bulls of three different grades, categorized based on their semen freezability visualising Group 1 (consistently freezable semen producer bulls, N = 11), Group 2 (inconsistent freezable, N = 16) and Group 3 (Non freezable, N = 67). Each group was further divided into two classes that is young (up to 30 months) and adult (31 to 70 months) bulls depending upon their age. Sperm morphology was studied by using the eosin-nigrosin staining technique. Bulls age significantly (P < 0.01) affected semen quality and sperm morphology. In adult bulls, semen volume, mass activity and sperm concentration were 36%, 17.56% and 19.6%, respectively, higher than young. Initial progressive motility (%) and livability showed significant (P < 0.01) improvement with the advancement of age (43.37 ± 1.21 and 67.71 ± 1.11, respectively, in young; 53.02 ± 1.11 and 74.17 ± 1.03, respectively, in adult). In young bulls, sperm head, mid piece, tail abnormality and total abnormal sperm percent (12.38 ± 0.92, 4.87 ± 0.24, 11.01 ± 0.60 and 28.26 ± 1.34, respectively) were 1.85, 1.27, 1.20 and 1.44 folds higher than that of their mature stage (6.69 ± 0.64, 3.82 ± 0.32, 9.14 ± 0.64 and 19.66 ± 1.31, respectively). Significant reduction (P < 0.01) in micro cephalic sperm, free heads, bent mid piece, looped mid piece and proximal protoplasmic droplets were observed at mature age as compared with their younger stage. In bulls of consistent freezing category, abnormal sperm heads significantly decreased from 4.40 ± 0.31% to 3.28 ± 0.02% on maturity. Similarly, in inconsistent freezing grade bulls sperm head abnormality (9.28 ± 0.75% to 5.13 ± 1.20%) and total abnormal sperm percent (24.89 ± 1.43 to 18.73 ± 3.40) was decreased over the age. On the contrary, in non-freezing category bulls’ sperm morphology did not show significant (P > 0.05) improvement with age advancement, rather some abnormalities like long slender head, under developed/deformed head, abaxial implantation of mid piece, double mid piece, stump tail and distal protoplasmic droplets tend to increased significantly (P < 0.05) with age of bulls. Results indicated that in potential Frieswal bulls semen quality and sperm morphology were improved from young to mature stage, where as, in poor quality (non-freezing) semen producer bulls neither the morphology nor the semen quality showed any improvement with maturity. It was recommended that crossbred bulls producing more than 25% morphologically abnormal sperms in young age (below 30 months) along with poor progressive motility (<50%) and low sperm concentration (<1000 million/ml) need immediate culling with out any expectation of further improvement in semen quality with age advancement.

Keywords

Sperm abnormalityFrieswal crossbred bullSperm morphologyBos indicus × Bos taurus
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , April 2010 , pp. 595 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barth, AD 1989. Abaxial tail attachment of bovine spermatozoa and its effect on fertility. Candian Veterinary Journal 30, 656–662.Google ScholarPubMed
Barth, AD, Oko, RJ 1989. Abnormal morphology of bovine spermatozoa. Iowa State University Press, Iowa.Google Scholar
Blom, E 1950. A one-minute live-dead sperm stain by means of Eosin-Nigrosin. Fertility and Sterility 1, 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, E 1968. A new sperm defect: pseudo-droplets, in the middle piece of bull sperm. Nordisk Veterinaermedicin 20, 279–283.Google Scholar
Brito, LFC, Silva, AEDF, Rodrigues, LH, Vieira, FV, Deragon, LAG, Kastelic, JP 2002. Effects of environmental factors, age and genotype on sperm production and semen quality in Bos indicus and Bos taurus AI bulls in Brazil. Animal Reproduction Science 70, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, A, Wood, P, Wright, P 1980. Association between scrotal circumference, live weight and sperm output in cattle. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 59, 447–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chacón, J, Pérez, E, Müller, E, Söderquist, L, Rodriguez-Martinez, H 1999. Breeding soundness evaluation of extensively managed bulls in Costa Rica. Theriogenology 52, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandler, JE, Adkinson, RW, Hay, GM, Crain, RL 1985. Environmental and genetic sources of variation for seminal quality in mature Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Sciences 68, 1270–1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenoweth, PJ 2005. Genetic sperm defects. Theriogenology 64, 457–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenoweth, PJ, Chase, C, Thatcher, M, Wilcox, C, Larsen, R 1996. Breed and other effects on reproductive traits and breeding soundness categorization in young beef bulls in Florida. Theriogenology 46, 1159–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenoweth, PJ, Spitzer, J, Hopkins, F 1992. A new breeding soundness evaluation form. Theriogenology 38, 63–70.Google Scholar
Crabo, B 1988. Sperm production by farm animals under tropical conditions. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, Belfield Campus, University College Dublin (Ireland), 26–30 June 1988, 238–245.Google Scholar
Diarra, MS, Pare, JP, Roy, G 1997. Genetic and environmental factors affecting semen quality of young Holstein bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 77, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, JK, Mocé, E 2005. Fertility evaluation of frozen/thawed semen. Theriogenology 64, 492–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hafez, ESE 1980. Reproduction in Farm Animals, 4th edition. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hancock, JL 1952. The morphology of bull spermatozoa. Journal of Experimental Biology 20, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Januskauskas, A, Gil, J, Rodriguez-Martinez, H, Söderquist, L, Lundeheim, N 1995. Effects of a brief elevation of scrotal temperature on the post-thaw viability of bull semen. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 30, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobim, MIM, Oberst, ER, Salbego, CG, Souza, DO, Wald, VB, Tramontina, F, Mattos, RC 2004. Two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of bovine seminal plasma proteins and their relation with semen freezability. Theriogenology 61, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumi-Diaka, J, Nagaratnam, V, Rwuaan, JS 1981. Seasonal and age-related changes in semen quality and testicular morphology of bulls in a tropical environment. Veterinary Records 3, 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathevon, M, Buhr, MM, Dekkers, JCM 1998. Environmental, managemental and genetic factors affecting semen production in Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Sciences 81, 3321–3330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathew, A, Joseph, PJ, Jose, TK 1982. Semen characteristics of purebred and cross-bred bulls. Indian Veterinary Journal 59, 364–367.Google Scholar
Nazir, M, Mushtaq, M, Masood, A, Munir, M, Naseer, T 1987. Morphological abnormalities in the spermatozoa of cross-bred cow bulls. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 7, 57–59.Google Scholar
Ohashi, OM, Souza, JS, Ribeiro, HFL, Vale, WG 1988. Prevalência de distrbios reproductivos em touros Bos indicus, Bos taurus e mestiços, criados em condições de clima tropical úmido amazônico. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileiria (Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research) 8, 31–35.Google Scholar
Pangawkar, GR, Sharma, RD, Sharma, R 1988. Phosphatase and transaminase activity in the seminal plasma of bulls in relation to freezability of semen. Theriogenology 29, 1393–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pant, HC, Mittal, AK, Patel, SH, Shukla, HR, Kasiraj, R, Prabhakar, JH, Barot, LR 2002. Abaxial sperm tails and fertility in buffalo bull. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 72, 314–315.Google Scholar
Prasad, S, Verma, MC, Tripathi, S 1990. Physico-morphological characteristics of semen of crossbred bulls having varying levels of exotic and indigenous inheritance. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 60, 679–682.Google Scholar
Sagdeo, LR, Chitnis, AB, Deshmukh, SN, Kaikini, AS 1990. Studies on semen freezability of pure Jersey and crossbred bulls with varying levels of exotic inheritance. Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction 11, 79–84.Google Scholar
Sagdeo, LR, Chitnis, AB, Kaikini, AS 1992. Semen freezability in relation to single or multiple exotic genetic component in crossbred bulls. Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction 13, 131–133.Google Scholar
Söderquist, L, Janson, L, Haard, M, Einarsson, S 1996. Influence of season, age, breed and some other factors on the variation in sperm morphological abnormalities in Swedish dairy AI bulls. Animal Reproduction Sciences 44, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sori, H, Prasad, S, Zewdie, E 2006. Seminal characteristics of some elite Ethiopian indigenous breeds of bull. Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction 27, 54–60.Google Scholar
Troconiz, J, Beltran, J, Bastidas, H, Larreal, H, Bastidas, P 1991. Testicular development, body weight changes, puberty and semen traits of growing Guzerat and Nelore bulls. Theriogenology 35, 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyagi, S, Mandal, DK, Kumar, M, Mathur, AK 2006. Reproductive wastage rate of crossbred dairy bulls with reference to level of exotic inheritance and number of breed components. Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction 27, 27–30.Google Scholar
Usmani, RH, Shah, SK, Zafar, AH 1993. Seasonal effect on semen producing ability of Holstein Friesian and crossbred bulls under sub-tropical environments of Punjab. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 13, 133–137.Google Scholar
Vale-Filho, V, Pinto, P, Megale, F, Fonseca, J, Soares, L 1980. Fertility of the bull in Brasil. A survey of 1088 bulls and 17945 ejaculations from Bos taurus, Bos indicus and crosses under tropical conditions. Proceedings of 9th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination 2, 545–548.Google Scholar
Wildeus, S, Entwistle, K 1983. Spermiogram and sperm reserves in hybrid Bos indicus × Bos taurus bulls after scrotal insulation. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 69, 711–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed