Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:42:32.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cytological characteristics and fertilizing capacity of bull spermatozoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Campbell ,
J. L. Hancock  and
I. G. Shaw
R. C. Campbell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
J. L. Hancock
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
I. G. Shaw
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Veterinary Investigation Centre, Worcester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two methods were used to estimate the frequencies of nine morphological classes of spermatozoa in 257 ejaculates from one Guernsey, five Friesian and seven Hereford bulls at an insemination centre. In nigrosin-eosin stained preparations and in fixed wet preparations the respective mean frequencies (%) were: malformed heads, 1·08 and 0·98; malformed middle pieces, 0·88 and 0·89; bent tails, 3·92 and 4·56; coiled tails, 0·60 and 0·43; free heads, 3·72 and 2·63; free tails, 1·79 and 1·85; neck beads, 0·87 and 0·93; middle-piece beads, 4·91 and 6·83.

2. There were close correlations between the two sets of measurements, but the differences of means were significant for free heads, bent tails, coiled tails, neck beads and middle-piece beads.

3. The mean percentage of dead (eosinophil) spermatozoa was 21·0.

4. The variations in the frequencies of each morphological class and of dead spermatozoa were divided within and between samples, ejaculates, bulls and breeds. The frequencies of all classes differed significantly between ejaculates within bulls; all but broken necks differed between bulls within breeds, and the Friesian and Hereford bulls differed in the frequencies of malformed heads, free heads, malformed middle pieces, free tails, neck beads and dead spermatozoa. The frequencies of bent tails, coiled tails and dead spermatozoa declined significantly with order of ejaculate.

5. The interrelationships of the frequencies of each class were examined. Two new methods used to measure the dead-sperm content of semen were shown to give results significantly correlated with those obtained by the conventional staining method and with motility ratings.

6. The interrelationships of measurements of the individual characteristics and conception rate were examined. Within-bull variations in conception rate showed a significant positive correlation (P < 0·05) with the frequencies of malformed heads and free heads. The between bull variation in conception rate showed a negative correlation with the frequency of neck beads (P < 0·05).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , August 1960 , pp. 91 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Bangham, A. D. & Hancock, J. L. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialy, G. & Smith, V. R. (1958). J. Dairy Sci., 41, 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. W. H., Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L. & Walton, A. (1954). J. Agric. Sci., 44, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. W. H. & Hancock, J. L. (1955). Vet. Rec., 67, 363.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. C., Dott, H. & Glover, T. D. (1956). J. Agric. Sci., 48, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. C., Hancock, J. L. & Rothschild, Lord (1953). J. Exp. Biol., 30, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1953). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1957). J. R. Micr. Soc., 76, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1959). J. Agric. Sci., 53, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. & Shaw, I. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerlof, N. (1934). Acta path. microbiol. Scand., Uppsala, Suppl., 19, 1.Google Scholar
Mercier, E. & Salisbury, G. W. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purs ey, G. R. & Hekman, H. A. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar