Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:25:22.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semen characteristics and fertility in the bull

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. W. H. Bishop ,
R. C. Campbell ,
J. L. Hancock  and
A. Walton
M. W. H. Bishop
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
R. C. Campbell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
J. L. Hancock
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
A. Walton
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, School of Agriculture, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Certain characteristics of bull semen have been examined at four artificial insemination centres in England. One hundred and twenty-one samples of semen, comprising 168 ejaculates from seventysix bulls of seven breeds, were examined. The semen from 119 tested samples was subsequently used to inseminate 4604 cows.

The following semen characteristics were studied: volume of ejaculate; concentration of spermatozoa; incidence of dead spermatozoa; incidence of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa; initial fructose concentration; resistance of spermatozoa to temporature shock; methylene-blue reduction; O2 uptake; fructose utilization; visual evaluation of motility; impedance change frequency; and fertilizing capacity (conception rate).

A clinical examination was made of the reproductive organs of each bull.

2. Variations in the concentration of living spermatozoa and in the incidence of dead spermatozoa were found to account for most of the variations in the metabolic activity of semon: they also largely explained differences in physical activity as assessed by visual estimation of motility or by impedance change frequency.

3. Although the rates of methylene-blue reduction, O2 uptake and fructolysis showed a close correlation with the numbers of living spermatozoa present, O2 uptake and fructolysis per living cell decreased with increasing cell concentration.

4. Variations in metabolic activity showed no correlation with variations in the morphological characteristics of the spermatozoa, except in the case of spermatozoa with bent tails. These forms occurred in some samples as a result of staining treatment, but their incidence was positively correlated with the O2 uptake and fructolysis per living cell.

5. There was evidence that highly active spermatozoa are more resistant to temperature shock than less active spermatozoa.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 227 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Anderson, J. (1940). Vet. J. 96, 18.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1945). The Semen of Animals and its Use for Artificial Insemination. Imperial Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 733.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1952). Hep. 2nd Int. Congr. Physiol. Path. Anim. Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 1, 7.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. (1937). Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 160, 268.Google Scholar
Beck, G. H. & Salisbury, G. W. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. W. H. & Salisbury, G. W. (1954). Amer. J. Physiol. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Blom, E. (1950). Om Bedommelsen af Tyresperma. Copenhagen: Mortensen.Google Scholar
Blom, E. & Christensen, N. O. (1947). Skand. Vet Tidskr. 37, 1.Google Scholar
Brochart, M. (1948). Rec. Méd. vét. 124, 84.Google Scholar
Chang, M. C. & Walton, A. (1940). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 129, 517.Google Scholar
Comstock, R. E. (1939). J. Exp. Zool. 81, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comstock, B. E. (1940). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 33, 216.Google Scholar
Comstock, R. E. & Green, W. W. (1939). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32, 213.Google Scholar
Dixon, M. (1943). Manometric Methods, 2nd ed.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1948). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 10th ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Gassner, F. X. & Hill, H. J. (1952). Rep. 2nd Int. Congress Physiol. Path. Anim. Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 3, 62.Google Scholar
Gassner, F. X., Hill, H. J. & Sulzberger, L. (1952). Sterility and Fertility, 3, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, D., Casida, L. E. & Lardy, H. A. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1949). Vet. Rec. 61, 308.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1952). J. Exp. Biol. 29, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1953). J. Exp. Biol. 30, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. & Rollinoson, D. H. L. (1949). Vet. Rec. 61, 742.Google Scholar
Herman, H. A. & Swanson, E. W. (1941). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 326.Google Scholar
Ivanov, E. E. (1931). Z. Zilcht. B, 20, 404.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. (1948). The Advanced Theory of Statistics, 2nd ed.London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Lagerlöf, N. (1934). Acta path, microbiol, scand. (Suppl.) 19.Google Scholar
Laing, J. A. (1945). J. Agric. Sci. 35, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, J. A. (1949). J. comp. Path, and Therapeutics, 59, 98.Google Scholar
Lardy, H. A. & Phillips, P. H. (1941). J. Biol. Chem. 138, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasley, J. F. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasley, J. F. & Bogart, R. (1943). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 376.Google Scholar
Lasley, J. F., Easley, G. T. & McKenzie, F. F. (1942). Anat. Rec. 82, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasley, J. F. & Mayer, D. T. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, F. W., Herman, H. A. & Berousek, E. R. (1947). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 407.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melrose, D. R. (1952). Brit. Vet. J. 108, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. (1934). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 2, 403.Google Scholar
Morris, P. G. D. (1950). Brit. Vet. J. 106, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pursley, G. R. & Herman, H. A. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redenz, E. (1930). Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Sex Research, London.Google Scholar
Redenz, E. (1933). Biochem. Z. 257, 234.Google Scholar
Rothschild, Lord (1949). Nature, Lond., 163, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, Lord (1950 a). J. Exp. Biol. 26, 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, Lord (1950 b). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, Lord (1953). Ciba Foundation Symposium on Mammalian Germ Cells. London: J. and A. Churchill Ltd.Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Beck, G. H., Elliot, J. & Willett, E. L. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Knodt, C. B. & Bratton, R. W. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Willett, E. L. & Seligman, J. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, E. (1942). Skand. VetTidskr. 32, 358.Google Scholar
Tanabe, T. Y. & Casida, L. E. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teunissen, G. H. B. (1946). Tijdschr. Diergeneesk. 71, 292.Google Scholar
Tosic, J. (1947). Nature, Lond., 159, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosic, J. & Walton, A. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosic, J. & Walton, A. (1950). Biochem. J. 47, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbreit, W. W., Burris, R. H. & Stauffer, J. F. (1949). Manometric Techniques and Tissue Metabolism. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Van Demark, N. L., Mercier, E. & Salisbury, G. W. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. (1927). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 101, 303.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1945). The Technique of Artificial Insemination, 3rd ed.Holborn Surgical Inst. Co., London.Google Scholar
Walton, A. & Edwards, J. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 31, 254.Google Scholar
Willett, E. L. & Buckner, P. J. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. W. (1921). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass., 58, 29.Google Scholar
Williams, W. W. & Savage, A. (1925). Cornell Vet. 15, 353.Google Scholar