Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:11:36.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation into the relationship between the metabolism of pyruvate in bull spermatozoa and fertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Glew
G. Glew
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two hundred and ninety-one samples of semen from seventy-four dairy bulls in use at seven artificial insemination centres and one bull-rearing centre were tested and graded according to the type of metabolic response under the experimental conditions described by Melrose & Terner (1953).

2. Conception rates of bulls were obtained from the breeding records based on not less than 150 first inseminations. Since the mean conception rates of centres varied, the fertility of each bull was assessed in relation to the mean conception rate of the centre at which the bull was standing. Bulls were considered of ‘high’ fertility when their conception rates were above, and of ‘low’ fertility when their conception rates were below a dividing line 5% below the mean conception rate of the centre.

3. A highly significant relationship (P < 0·001) was found between the groups of the metabolic responses and the fertility levels of the bulls. The practical application of the test in the assessment of the potential fertility of individual bulls is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , December 1956 , pp. 153 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

REFERENCES

Bishop, M. W. H., Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L. & Walton, A. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, C. P. & Melrose, D. R. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1950). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 11th ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Krebs, H. A. & Eggleston, L. V. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipschitz, M. A., Potter, V. R. & Elvehjem, C. A. (1938). J. Biol. Chem. 123, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1954). The Biochemistry of Semen, Chap, II, London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melrose, D. R. & Terner, C. (1953). Biochem. J. 53, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redenz, E. (1933). Biochem. Z. 257, 234.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. L. (1950). Vet. Rec. 62, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. L., Melrose, D. R. & Wilson, W. R. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 609.Google Scholar
Terner, C. (1951). Biochem. J. 50, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar