(12 Sent)
Who saw this article? New!
Author: Joaquín Gadea
Abstract
This report reviews the latest knowledge on boar semen diluents used in artificial
insemination procedures. The requirements of an effective fresh semen diluent
are discussed and currently available extenders are compared. Finally, we suggest
directions to be taken in future research on this topic. A semen extender should
be carefully selected according to its proposed use. For a planned semen storage
time of under 72 h, it is preferable to use a short-term extender. This type
of diluent is less expensive and has been associated with a similar reproduction
outcome to that of long-term extenders. When semen doses need to be stored for
more than 4 days (because of long distances, disease control procedures, etc.),
we recommend the use of a long-term extender on a higher sperm concentration
to compensate for reduced sperm viability due to ageing. The semen extender
must be selected on the grounds of optimal performance (in terms of fertility
and litter size), which, in turn, depends on the particularly conditions of
each pig farm. The choice of extender is crucial given its profound effect on
the economic viability of the artificial insemination programme.
Key words: artificial insemination,
swine, diluent, spermatozoon, fertility
The artificial insemination (AI) of the pig was first performed by Ivanow in
Russia at the start of the XXth century (Ivanow, 1907; 1922). In the 1930s,
the procedure was developed at Russian state farms (Rodin and Lipatov, 1935;
Milovanow, 1938) and over subsequent years, the practice of AI spread to other
countries (USA, Mckenzie, 1931; Japan, Ito et al., 1948). Following the studies
performed by Chris Polge (1956), AI was reintroduced for swine production in
the UK. The great advantage of AI is that the genetic potential of the best
boars can be transferred to a large number of sows, leading to genetic improvements.
However, the true development and wide commercial application of AI in pig production
did not take place until the 1980s (reviewed in Reed, 1985; Crabo, 1990; Johnson
et al., 2000) when insemination protocols were standardised. This almost entire
century of development has obviously also seen considerable advances in methods
of collecting the semen from boars and preparing these semen doses, as well
as continued progress in designing AI protocols for use in commercial settings.
Today, AI in pig production is widely applied throughout the developed world,
although the its extent of use in the different countries is highly variable.
In Europe, this reproduction technique is generally extensively used, accounting
for 80% of the reproductive gilts/sows in many countries (Holand, France, Germany,
Spain, Norway, Finland etc.). In contrast, the rate of AI use in the US is still
low (around 50%), though these last few years have witnessed a notable increase.
According to most recent estimates, some 19 million inseminations are performed
world-wide per year, of which almost all (99%) are conducted using boar semen
preserved at a temperature of 15–20ºC (Johnson et al., 2000). Over
85% of these artificial inseminations are performed on the day or following
day of sperm collection. The development of the AI technique in pig production
has been mostly prompted by the dissemination of improved boar genes and the
fact that results are equivalent or even better than those related to natural
service.
This report analyses the economic and productive implications of the diluents
used in porcine AI. Despite the established importance of the type of semen
diluent used, this topic has not been extensively reviewed in the literature
(Weitze, 1990; Reed, 1990; Althouse, 1997; Johnson, 2000; Levis, 2000). Our
aim was thus to review – in the light of the most recently published findings
– the significance of the choice of semen diluent in current conditions
of pig production.
Diluents
By the term diluent, or extender, we mean the aqueous solution used to increase
the volume of the ejaculate until that of the required dose. This needs to be
done while preserving the functional characteristics of the sperm cells such
that the appropriate sow fertility rate is maintained.
The spermatozoa are found in the seminal plasma, which supplies them with the
necessary nutrients for the high metabolic demands of sperm transport through
the female genital tract. In the ejaculate, this high metabolic activity can
only be maintained over a limited period, as established in early studies on
the preservation of boar semen (Lewis, 1911). Thus, to preserve spermatozoa
for prolonged periods, their metabolic activity needs to be reduced by diluting
in an appropriate medium and lowering the temperature.
Given their particular features, boar spermatozoa are extremely sensitive to
cold shock (Pursel et al., 1973a) which alters sperm viability. Specifically,
this sensitivity seems to be related to the lipid content of the sperm cell
membranes. Thus, when the temperature falls, lateral movements of membrane phospholipids
are reduced and this causes separation of the lipid phases, which is associated
with irreversible alterations to membrane proteins. The end result is that the
function of the sperm membrane changes, compromising cell viability (reviewed
in White, 1993). This reaction to cold shock means that in practice, semen samples
need to be kept at 15-20ºC, since a further reduced storage temperature
limits their viability (Paulenz et al., 2000).
The need to preserve boar semen samples at these moderately reduced temperatures
restricts their storage capacity since cell metabolism cannot be slowed down
and because microbiological conditions may not be as effectively controlled
as at lower temperatures (5ºC).
In addition, dilution lowers the concentration of certain compounds in the seminal
plasma, such as K+ (Harrison et al., 1978) or plasma proteins, altering sperm
viability. These losses need to be compensated by adding ingredients to the
diluent formulation such as bovine serum albumin (BSA), which has been shown
to enhance motility (Waberski et al. 1989) and improve fertility rates derived
from the use of preserved semen (Waberski et al., 1994a).
Types of diluent
At a practical level and for current production purposes, diluents can be divided
into two major groups: those designed for short-term preservation (less than
1-3 days), and diluents for long-term semen preservation (over 4 days) (Table
1). The former are mainly used in short distance semen dose distribution networks
(such as European systems in which semen doses are frequently produced at the
farm itself), while long-term diluents are generally used in programmes such
as those of the US or Norway, where the site of semen production is a long distance
away from the site of insemination.
Table 1. Diluents classed as short-
and long-term
|
| Short-term (1-3 days) |
Long-term (over 4 days) |
| Beltsville Liquid (BL-1) |
Acromax® |
| Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS) |
Androhep® |
| Illinois Variable Temperature (IVT) |
Modena |
| Kiev |
MULBERRY III® |
| |
Reading |
| |
X-Cell® |
| |
Zorlesco |
| |
ZORPVA |
The advantages of long-term diluents include the possibility of: long distance
transport, conducting diagnostic tests on semen before use, such as the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) to detect the presence of several viruses or a full analysis
of semen quality, improving the organisation of tasks at semen collection centres
and – to a large extent – this type of diluent helps distribute
the semen samples to the reproduction farms.
The first Russian diluents were based on glucose solutions containing sodium
or potassium tartrate or sodium sulphate and peptones, always ensuring electrolyte
levels were low (reviewed in Foote, 2002a). Since then, in the 1950s, diluents
for use in cow production based on egg yolk plus phosphate or citrate and milk
were developed, and certain modifications for preserving boar semen were adopted
(reviewed in Foote, 2002a). Of note among these was the adapted Illinois Variable
Temperature diluent, which was used to preserve cattle semen at room temperature
(du Mesnil du Buisson and Dauzier, 1959). The IVT medium is based on a solution
of glucose, citrate, bicarbonate and egg yolk, but needs to be gassed with CO2
to lower metabolic activity (Table 2).
|
Table 2. Composition (in g/L) of the most commonly used
boar semen extenders |
| |
IVT |
Kiev |
BTS |
Zorlesco |
MRA |
ZORPVA |
Reading |
Modena |
Androhep |
| Glucose |
3 |
60 |
37 |
11.5 |
+ |
11.5 |
11.5 |
25ª |
26 |
| Sodium
citrate |
24.3 |
3.7 |
6.0 |
11.7 |
+ |
11.65 |
11.65 |
6.90 |
8.0 |
| EDTA |
|
3.7 |
1.25 |
2.3 |
+ |
2.35 |
2.35 |
2.25 |
2.4 |
| Sodium
bicarbonate |
2.4 |
1.2 |
1.25 |
1.25 |
+ |
1.75 |
1.75 |
1.00 |
1.2 |
| Potassium
chloride |
0.4 |
|
0.75 |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
| Acetylcysteine |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HEPES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.0 |
| BSA |
|
|
|
5.0 |
+ |
|
|
3.00 |
2.5 |
| TRIS |
|
|
|
6.5 |
- |
5.5 |
5.5 |
5.65 |
|
| Citrate |
|
|
|
4.1 |
- |
4.1 |
4.1 |
2.00 |
|
| Cysteine |
|
|
|
0.1 |
+ |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.05 |
|
| Trehalose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
| PVA |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
| Potassium
acetate |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
| MOPS |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
| mOsm |
290 |
380 |
330 |
240 |
290 |
275 |
300 |
282 |
309 |
| |
|
7.2 |
7.2 |
|
6.9 |
|
|
6.9 |
6.8 |
a: glucose monohydrate
IVT (du Mesnil du Buisson and Dauzier, 1959); Kiev (Plisko, 1965); BTS (Pursel
and Johnson, 1975); Zorlesco (Gottardi et al., 1980); MR-A (Martín Rillo,
1984); ZORPVA (Cheng, 1985); Reading (Revell and Gossop, 1989); Modena (Moretti,
1981); Androhep (Weitze 1990)
The great innovation of the 1960s was the addition of a chelating agent (EDTA)
to semen extenders, to block the action of calcium as a mediator of sperm capacitation
and the acrosome reaction. It was at this time that the Kiev diluent appeared
on the scene (Plisko, 1965) and subsequently became modified under several names
(EDTA, Merck I, Plisko, Guelph). The Kiev diluent was responsible for the expansion
of the AI of swine and is still successfully used today.
The exhaustive work performed at the Beltsville Center (USA) on possible methods
of preserving boar sperm was the highlight of research on the topic in the 1970s.
The team headed by Pursel and Johnson undertook numerous tests to develop diluents
for cold storage (BL-1, Pursel et al., 1973b) and freezing (BF-5, Pursel and
Johnson, 1975). Undoubtedly, their most far-reaching discovery was that of the
BTS medium (Betsville Thawing Solution, Pursel and Johnson, 1975), initially
designed as a thawing medium and subsequently adapted for refrigerated semen
(Johnson et al., 1988). BTS, probably the most widely used semen extender throughout
the world, is characterised by containing a small amount of potassium. This
feature preserves the sodium potassium pump and thus avoids intracellular potassium
depletion which is related to reduced sperm motility (Alvarez and Storey, 1982).
The first of the so-called long-term diluents was the Zorlesco medium (Gottardi
et al., 1980). This fairly complex medium is composed of TRIS as a pH regulator,
bovine serum albumin (BSA) and the amino acid cysteine. As other compounds with
a sulphydryl group, cysteine is a membrane stabiliser and capacitation inhibitor
(Johnson et al., 2000). The use of this diluent in field conditions yielded
poor results, partly because of imbalances in its composition that lead to a
low final osmotic pressure (240 mOsm, Table 2). This was followed by the creation
of the Modena diluent by Moretti (1981), who increased the proportion of glucose
and removed the BSA of the Zorlesco medium only to find that fertility results
were still unsatisfactory (Johnson et al., 1988; Laforest and Allard, 1996).
In a concurrent manner, Martín-Rillo and Alias developed the MR-A medium
in Spain (Martín Rillo, 1984), and although its composition has not been
disclosed to the public for commercial reasons, its performance as a long-term
diluent up until now has been good.
In this same period, two long-term diluents were designed in the UK: ZORPVA
(Cheng, 1985) and Reading (Revell and Gossop, 1989). Both are complex media
based on a slightly modified Zorlesco medium in that they contain polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) as a macromolecule, improving the proportion of intact acrosomes.
These diluents are more expensive (149 - 163%, Reed and Curnock, 1990) than
their short-term counterparts and their results do not surpass those obtained
with other diluents (Reed and Curnock, 1990). It is due to these high costs,
that their use has not become widely extended.
In 1990, Wietze developed the Androhep diluent comprised of HEPES as the pH
regulator, and BSA to compensate for the dilution effect on seminal plasma proteins
and for its slightly hypertonic nature (309 mOsm). This diluent has been well
accepted in the swine production sector as a long-term semen extender.
Over the last few years, several new long-term diluents have emerged (Acromax,
X-Cell, Androhep Plus, Vital, SpermAid, Mulberry III, Safe Cell Plus, etc.).
Unfortunately, the quantitative composition of these media is unknown due to
commercial interests, and though we do not doubt the quality of these diluents
there is a lack of fertility data derived from comparative studies conducted
at independent centres. Hence, we will need to wait for this information to
become available.
Diluents used for freezing boar semen are based on egg yolk and glycerol as
cryoprotecting agents, a high concentration of sugars and a detergent (Orvus
et paste). The most commonly used diluents are the lactose-egg yolk medium (Westendorf
et al., 1975) and the extender denominated BF-5described by Pursel and Johnson
(1975), whose composition includes glucose, egg yolk, and Tris as the pH regulator.
These media are used in freezing processes performed on semen pellets on dry
ice.
Diluent actions
To perform its function, the extender should supply the nutrients needed for
the metabolic maintenance of the sperm cell (glucose), afford protection against
cold shock (BSA), control the pH (bicarbonate, TRIS, HEPES) and osmotic pressure
(NaCl, KCl) of the medium, and inhibit microbial growth (antibiotics).
Nutrients
The spermatazoon can produce the energy needed to maintain its cell metabolism
and cause the flagellum to move, mainly through glycolytic pathways. These processes
occur in the mitochondria located in the middle portion of the spermatozoon.
The source of energy most commonly used in semen diluents is glucose, although
other sugars have been tested (galactose, fructose, ribose or trehalose) but
have generally yielded worse results.
Regulating pH
The pH of freshly ejaculated boar semen is around 7.4 ±0.2, similar to
other body fluids. When this pH is reduced, both the sperm's metabolism and
motility are reduced. Its glycolytic metabolism (glucose is the main carbohydrate)
leads to a reduced intracellular pH and consequently cell metabolism is suppressed.
Lactic acid is the main metabolite of this process and has been used as an indicator
of semen quality (Rigau et al., 1996).
The addition of buffering agents therefore helps control the pH of the medium.
The simplest buffers used are bicarbonate and sodium citrate, which show a limited
buffering capacity. Other more complex buffers (TES, HEPES, MOPS, TRIS) can
control the pH over a wider range and are not temperature-dependent (MOPS and
HEPES).
The pH of the diluents normally used ranges from 6.8 to 7.2 (Table 2), but it
should be taken into account that in these media, the pH does not become stable
until 60-90 min from the start of dilution in water and that the different extenders
show a different pattern of pH change over time (Newth and Levis, 1999). Thus,
appropriate measures need to taken when preparing the diluent to avoid detrimental
effects on preservation.
Osmotic pressure
The boar spermatozoon has an osmotic pressure of 290-300 mOsm, and can tolerate
a fairly wide range of osmotic pressures (240-380 mOsm). Several authors have
evaluated tolerance to different osmotic pressures, and concluded that neither
motility nor viability are affected by osmotic pressures in the range 250 to
290 mOsm (Fraser et al., 2001). However, at pressures below 200 mOsm, motility
is significantly reduced (Gilmore et al., 1996, Fraser et al., 2001).
Isotonic or slightly hypertonic diluents (300 mOsm) have provided best results
in conditions of commercial use. Salts of inorganic ions such as sodium and
potassium chloride are mainly used to regulate osmotic pressure.
Diluent costs
In general, costs related to reproduction represent a low proportion of the
overall cost of pig production and have been estimated at 1.9% (Rouco and Muñoz,
1998). If we consider that most of this cost is associated with the human resources
needed for diagnosing oestrus, semen collection and administering semen doses
(Flowers and Esbenshade, 1993; See, 1996), the diluent represents an insignificant
portion of complete production costs. Nonetheless, at artificial insemination
centres that market semen doses, the choice of diluent does of course have its
economic repercussions. Whichever the case, the cost of the extender is negligible
compared to the possible consequences on farrowing rates and litter sizes.
The concept of diluent costs should not only include those needed to purchase
its components but also those derived from its preparation. Thus, over the past
few years, owing to high personnel costs, many laboratories opt for the use
of powdered preparations (or concentrated liquid stock solutions) that only
require diluting in distilled water. This method contrasts with in-house preparation,
which involves separately weighing each component before final dilution.
The emergence of several firms that design and produce their own diluents has
greatly extended the range of products offered and has given rise to a successful
market and commercial activity (Pig International, 1998) in which their is intense
competition among distributors. It may be said that, in general, long-term diluents
are more expensive to produce than short-term ones, due to higher cost constituents
such as TRIS, BSA, etc., and the longer time needed to weigh the higher number
of components (Reed, 1990).
Use of antibiotics
In most cases, the testicular tissue and accessory glands of the boar are bacteria-free,
and therefore bacterial contamination of the ejaculate occurs during the semen
collection process (Martin Rillo et al., 1998). An antibiotic needs to be added
to the diluent since its components (glucose) and the temperature at which semen
doses are stored (15-16ºC) promote the growth of most Gram negative bacteria
(including Escherichia Coli and some Salmonella and Pseudomonas species).
Bacterial contamination mainly leads to a series of alterations including diminished
sperm motility, sperm agglutination, or "clumping", an increased proportion
of altered acrosomes and pH lowering to acidic levels (5.7-6.4) (Althouse et
al., 2000). These factors all shorten the length of time semen doses can be
preserved. Thus, adding an antibiotic at the appropriate concentration improves
sperm survival and, in turn, improves fertility results (reviewed in Colenbrander
et al., 1993). Further, the appropriate use of antibiotics could even represent
a huge advance, if the conditions of hygiene in which semen is collected and
the doses processed were also improved (Almond and Poolperm, 1996).
Penicillin plus streptomycin (1 g L-1) was initially the combination
most frequently used. Subsequent to this, aminoglycosides were –and still
are– successfully used including gentamicin, neomycin and kanamycin at
concentrations around 200 mg L-1. Most recently, new generation antibiotics
(ceftiofur, apramycin, etc.) are being used, though no conclusive results are
available yet.
At the legislation level, there are two reference bodies: the Office International
des Epizooties (OIE) and the European Union (EU).
In its International Animal Health Code (2002), the OIE regulates the criteria
to be applied to semen diluents. This norm basically recommends that if a diluent
contains an ingredient such as milk, egg yolk or other animal protein, these
should be pathogen-free or sterilised. The addition of antibiotics is permitted,
provided they are declared in the corresponding international veterinary certificates.
In the EU setting, Directive 90/429/CEE, which regulates health policies applied
to exchanges between member countries and the import of boar sperm, stipulates
the use of a combination of antibiotics that should be efficient particularly
against leptospirochaetes and mycoplasmas. Its concentration should at least
have an effect equivalent to the following: 500 IU/mL streptomycin, 500 UI/mL
penicillin, 150 mg/mL lincomycin or 300 mg/mL spectinomycin. This norm also
indicates that immediately after adding the antibiotics, the diluted semen should
be kept at a temperature of at least 15ºC for a minimum of 45 min.
Fertility tests
The efficiency of semen extenders in reproduction terms has been extensively
evaluated. First, we should consider that the relationship between semen quality
(which the diluent preserves) and resultant fertility is not direct (Gadea et
al., 1998; Gadea, 2001). Moreover, studies assessing boar semen diluents have
been conducted in very different experimental conditions (animal species, environmental
conditions, number of inseminations, number of spermatozoa per dose, time of
AI etc.). Thus, comparisons need to be undertaken with particular caution and
the conclusions to be drawn are of a general nature and applicable only to the
majority of cases.
Preservation time
Several investigations have analysed the effect of storing boar semen in different
diluents on fertility after AI. Thus, the diluent BTS (Hofmo,1991) gives rise
to a significant reduction in fertility when the diluted semen is stored for
48 h, while the total number of piglets born (TNB) and the number of piglets
born alive (NBA) significantly decreases after 24 h of storage (Table 3). Similar
results were obtained by Alexopoulos et al. (1996) who noted reduced fertility
when the semen was stored for more than 72 h in BTS.
Table 3. Fertility and litter size
assessed after insemination with semen preserved in BTS
|
|
Hours of preservation |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
NBA |
|
4-14 |
67.8ª |
11.96ª |
10.94ª |
|
28-38 |
69.8ª |
11.73b |
10.73b |
|
52-62 |
64.6b |
11.61b |
10.64b |
a,b: different letters in the same column indicate
a significant difference at p<0.05. Source: Hofmo, 1991.
In contrast, Martínez et al. (1986) found that diluent MR-A was able
to maintain the same fertility rate and number of live births using semen stored
for up to 5 days (Table 4). In a subsequent study, however, it was concluded
that fertility significantly decreases when semen is preserved in this medium
for 7-8 days (84 vs. 67.3%) while litter size is not appreciably affected (11.1
vs 10.7) (Lyczynski and Kolat, 1996).
Comparing diluents
Many studies have centred on evaluating the new diluents with respect to well
known extenders. Of all the available data, we will discuss the most significant
findings.
Although a higher sperm survival rate (measured as motility) has been observed
with the long-term extenders (MR-A and Androhep) compared to the short-term
diluent Kiev (Korniewicz et al., 1996), this difference was not significant
when Androhep was compared to BTS (Waberski et al., 1994a). Recently, Huo et
al. (2002) performed an interesting study on the quality of semen diluted in
different media (Androhep, Zorlesco, BTS and Kiev) and stored for up to 15 days.
Their findings indicated that sperm viability and mitochondrial activity exceeded
50% after 13 days of storage in long-term diluents (Androhep and Zorlesco).
Table 4. Fertility and litter size
assessed after insemination with semen preserved in MR-A.
|
| Nº days' storage |
Nº services |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
| 0-1 |
136 |
84.5 |
8.9 |
| 1-2 |
145 |
82.7 |
9.2 |
| 2-3 |
170 |
86.4 |
9.3 |
3-4 |
104 |
81.7 |
8.9 |
4-5 |
99 |
83.8 |
9.2 |
Source: Martínez et al., 1986.
Table 5. Fertility and litter size
following insemination with semen preserved in Kiev or MR-A.
|
|
|
Kiev |
M-RA |
|
Days |
N |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
n |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
|
1 |
20121 |
85.0 |
11.6 |
12556 |
85.6 |
11.9 |
|
2 |
14968 |
83.7 |
11.4 |
13139 |
84.7 |
11.8 |
|
3 |
2968 |
82.2 |
10.9 |
9110 |
82.6 |
11.5 |
|
4 |
294 |
82.3 |
10.5 |
4775 |
82.0 |
11.2 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
1747 |
80.4 |
10.8 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
706 |
81.5 |
11.2 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
183 |
81.4 |
10.4 |
|
Total |
38351 |
84.3 |
11.5 |
42216 |
84.0 |
11.6 |
Source: Ratto and Jokinen, 1990
The Kiev extender provided improved fertility results over those achieved with
Beltsville liquid I (BL1) after 1 (74.5 vs. 64.7%) or 3 days (65.9 vs 60.5%)
of storage (Johnson et al., 1982). In subsequent evaluations of short-term diluents,
BTS was found to be more efficient than Kiev, Zorlesco and Modena in terms of
fertility (Aalbers et al., 1983; Blichfeldt et al., 1988).
When we compared short-term diluents to those of long duration, no significant
differences in fertility or litter size were generally noted in the first 3-4
days of storage, although the long-term extenders could be used for up to 7
days (Table 5). This is reflected by the results reported by Ratto and Jokinen
(1990) when Kiev was compared to MR-A. Similar findings were described by Johnson
et al. (1988), when they compared BTS to MR-A and Modena. These authors detected
no significant differences between BTS and MR-A when used for up to 4 days of
storage, but fertility rates and litter sizes were significantly improved over
those recorded for Modena (Table 6) after AI of multiparous sows. However, these
differences were diminished when the diluted semen was used to inseminate gilts,
with no differences observed in litter size among the three diluents assessed.
Similarly, Hofmo et al. (1998) noted no significant differences related to the
use of BTS to preserve semen for 2-3 days compared to MR-A for 4-5 days.
Weitze (1990) compared the litter sizes obtained using semen stored for 3 or
5 days in Androhep, BW25 or Kiev (Table 7). No differences were recorded in
terms of fertility. The study involved simple insemination using 2 x 109 spermatozoa
per dose and the authors reported reduced litter sizes as the storage time increased.
Later, when Waberski et al. (1994a) compared the media Kiev and Androhep used
for storing semen for 2 to 5 days, they observed similar fertility results while
the litter size was greater for Androhep after the fourth day of storage.
Table 6. Fertility and litter size
after AI using semen preserved in BTS, Modena or MR-A
|
| |
Multiparous sows |
Gilts |
| |
BTS |
Modena |
MR-A |
BTS |
Modena |
MR-A |
| N |
721 |
700 |
720 |
103 |
117 |
91 |
| % Fertility |
79.3ª |
50.4b |
77.6ª |
73.5a |
50.2b |
64.1ab |
| TNB |
11.4ª |
10.0b |
11.1ª |
9.5a |
8.5a |
9.6ª |
| NBA |
10.7a |
9.4b |
10.5a |
8.9a |
7.8a |
9.0a |
a,b: different letters in the same column indicate a significant difference
at p<0.004
Source: Johnson et al., 1988
Table 7. Fertility and litter size
after AI using semen preserved for 3 or 5 days in Androhep, BW25 or
Kiev.
|
| |
N |
% Fertility |
TNB |
| |
3 days |
5 days |
3 days |
5 days |
3 days |
5 days |
| Androhep |
351 |
316 |
76.9 |
73.1
|
10.9a
|
10.4b |
| BW25 |
361 |
357 |
76.7 |
67.2
|
10.8
|
10.2 |
|
Kiev |
404 |
350 |
75.1 |
71.1
|
10.7a
|
10.0b |
a,b: different letters in the same row indicate a
significant difference at p<0.05
Source: Weitze, 1990.
Finally, other studies have compared long-term diluents among themselves. Laforest
and Allard (1996) in Canada compared the diluents MRA, BTS, Modena and Androhep
and found no significant differences in fertility neither among the diluents
nor according to the time of preservation (1-2 days vs 3-4 days). Only Modena
was related to a discretely reduced total number of piglets born (TNB) after
3-4 days of storage. Kuster and Althouse (1999) analysed the use of Androhep
and X-Cell, observing similar fertility results for the two diluents and the
different number of days of semen storage (up until 5 days). However, Androhep
was associated with reduced fertility on the sixth day of preservation and with
a reduced litter size on the fifth day (Table 8).
Table 8. Fertility and litter size
after AI using semen preserved in Androhep or X-Cell.
|
| |
Androhep |
X-Cell
|
| Days |
N |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
n |
Fertility (%) |
TNB |
| 2 - 3 |
170 |
85.9 |
10.3 |
172 |
86.1 |
10.2 |
| 3 - 4 |
164 |
86.6 |
9.2 |
151 |
84.1 |
10.0 |
| 4 - 5 |
188 |
85.1 |
9.0* |
183 |
86.3 |
10.4* |
| 5 - 6 |
201 |
78.6* |
9.4 |
202 |
85.6* |
9.7 |
* p<0.01
Source: Kuster and Althouse (1999)
Future perspectives
After almost a century of artificial insemination in swine, knowledge about
the preservation of boar spermatozoa is still very limited and demands that
future studies take the following directions:
a. Up until now, the design of new diluents has been based on an empirical model.
In the future we will need to gain more insight into the sperm cell and its
metabolism, and new models are needed to evaluate and optimise the diluent's
components (Pettit et al., 1999). Several additives are currently being evaluated
that could affect sperm viability (e.g., alkyl-glycerol by Cheminade et al.,
2002), protect against cold shock (Zeng and Terada, 2001) or improve sperm transport,
synchrony with ovulation (Waberski et al., 1994b) and the fertilisation process
(reviewed in Waberski, 1997; Kemp and Soede, 1997).
b. The possibility of preserving semen at temperatures below 15ºC would help
reduce sperm metabolic activity and protect against the detrimental effects
of microbial contamination. This type of investigation should address the cold
shock problem. Several research teams are presently engaged in evaluating the
effects of temperature on sperm survival (Althouse et al.,1998; Paulenz et al.,
2000) and especially on fertility results. Althouse et al. (1998) reported similar
results for fertility (93 vs 95%) and litter size (TNB, 11.58 vs 11.61; NBA,
10.68 vs 10.63) related to the use of semen stored for 60 h at 12 or 17ºC. Foote
(2002b) has recently published promising results after preserving boar semen
at 5ºC in media containing egg yolk.
c. Diluents also need to be adapted to individual differences among animals.
Levis (2000) suggests the revision of several features of AI that have not been
extensively explored including individual differences, since not all males interact
in the same way with the diluents used (Weitze, 1990). Different breed-diluent
interactions have also been described (Richter and Claus, 1990).
d. The use of new techniques such as deep intrauterine insemination, in which
the number of spermatazoa per dose and insemination volume is reduced, could
require new preservation conditions and accordingly, the diluent will need to
be better assessed for this purpose (reviewed in Rath, 2002).
Practical conclusions
The choice of diluent should depend on its proposed use. When it is planned
that the time from semen collection to use will be less than 3 days, the most
rational choice would be to use a short-term diluent (of the BTS or Kiev type).
The results of previous studies suggest no appreciable effects on semen quality
or resultant fertility rates. Moreover, this type of diluent is less expensive
and results are similar to those achieved with a long-term extender.
When the semen dose needs to be preserved for more than 4 days before insemination
(in the case of long distances, health inspection of the semen etc.) a long-term
semen extender should be used and, the sperm concentration of the dose should
be increased. This precaution will compensate for any loss of sperm viability
through ageing.
Whether a short- or long-term diluent is used, it should always be borne in
mind that there are many factors than can affect the fertility results obtained.
Thus, every effort possible should be made to optimise essential procedures
such as oestrus diagnosis and selecting and processing the semen doses to ensure
the best semen quality possible. The choice of diluent should always be aimed
at optimising subsequent fertility rates and litter sizes in the particular
conditions of each pig farm, since economic repercussions on production can
be devastating.
Summary
The aim of this article was to review the last knowledge in relation
to the boar semen extenders used for artificial insemination. The requirements
for an effective fresh semen extender, comparison of currently used ones and
where do we go in the next future was analysed.
The selection of the semen extender is associated to the use of the seminal
doses. When the storing time is lower than 72 hours, the use of short-term extender
is preferred because they have a lower cost and the reproductive results are
similar. When the storing time is over 4 days (long distances, diseases control,
etc) long-term extender and a higher sperm concentration must be use to compensate
the lost of spermatozoa viability by ageing. The selection of the semen extender
must be done to optimise the reproductive results (fertility and litter size)
in the particularly conditions of every porcine farm, because the effect on
the economic performance is crucial.
Joaquín Gadea
Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia,
Campus de Espinardo, 30071 Murcia, Spain.
Tel: 34 968364655 Fax: 34 968 364147
jgadea@um.es, www.um.es/grupo-fisiovet
References
AALBERS J.G., RADEAMAKER J.H.M., GROTEN H.J.G., JOHNSON L.A., 1983. Fecundity
of boar semen stored in BTS, Kiev, Zorlesco and Modena extenders under field
conditions. J Anim Sci 57 (Suppl. 1), 314-315.
ALEXOPOULOS C., BOSCOS C., SARATSIS PH., SAOULIDIS C., KYRIAKIS S., 1996. The
effect of storage time and number of spermatozoa per insemination dose on semen
characteristics and fertilizing capacity of boar semen diluted with Beltsville
Thaw Solution (BTS) extender. Anim Sci 62, 599-604.
ALMOND G., POOLPERM P., 1996. Semen contamination and choosing antibiotics.
Proceedings of the North Carolina Healthy Hogs Seminar. Available at: http://mark.asci.ncsu.edu/HealthyHogs/book1996/book96_5.htm
ALTHOUSE G.C., KUSTER C.E., CLARK S.G., WEISIGER R.M., 2000. Field investigations
of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology
53, 1167-1176.
ALTHOUSE G.C., WILSON M.E., KUSTER C., PARSLEY M., 1998. Characterization of
lower temperature storage limitations of fresh-extended porcine semen. Theriogenology.
50, 535-543.
ALTHOUSE G.C., 1997. Comparison of currently used semen extenders in the swine
industry. Compend Cont Educ Pract Vet 19, 777-782.
ALVAREZ J.G., STOREY B.T., 1982. Spontaneous lipid peroxidation in rabbit epididymal
spermatozoa: its effect on sperm motility. Biol Reprod 27, 1102-1108.
BLICHFELDT T., ALMID T., STAVNE S.E., 1988. Liquid preservation of boar semen
in Kiev or BTS. A field comparison. 11th ICAR. Dublin. 3, 231.
CHEMINADE C., GAUTIER V., HICHAMI A., ALLAUME P., LE LANNOU D., LEGRAND A.B.,
2002. 1-O-alkylglycerols improve boar sperm motility and fertility. Biol Reprod
66, 421-8.
CHENG T.T.K., 1985. In vitro fertilization of farm animal oocytes. PhD Thesis,
Council for National Academic Awards. UK.
COLENBRANDER B., FEITSMA H., GROOTEN H.J., 1993. Optimizing semen production
for artificial insemination in swine. J. Reprod. Fert. Supp. 48, 207-215.
CRABO B.G., 1990. Preservation of boar semen: a worldwide perspective. Reprod
Dom Anim Suppl 1, 3-9.
Directive 90/429/CEE of the Council of June 26, 1990. DO L 224 18.08.1990 p.62
DU MESNIL DU BUISSON F., DAUZIER L., 1959. Improvement of practical use of preservation
techniques for boar semen by saturation of the diluent with carbondioxide. Ann
Zootech Suppl 8, 81-96.
FLOWERS W.L., ESBENSHADE K.L., 1993. Optimizing management of natural and artificial
matings in swine. J Reprod Fert Supp 48, 217-228.
FOOTE R.H., 2002a. The history of artificial insemination: Selected notes and
notables. J. Anim. Sci. Biography and History Series, 1-10.
FOOTE R.H., 2002b. Within-herd use of boar semen at 5 degrees C, with a note
on electronic monitoring of oestrus. Reprod Domest Anim 37, 61-63.
FRASER L., GORSZCZARUK K., STRZEZEK J., 2001. Relationship between motility
and membrane integrity of boar spermatozoa in media varying in osmolality. Reprod
Domest Anim 36, 325-329.
GADEA J., MATAS C., LUCAS X., 1998. Prediction of porcine semen fertility by
homologous in vitro penetration (hIVP) assay. Anim Reprod Sci 54, 95-108.
GADEA J., SELLÉS E., TOMÁS P., RUIZ S., 2001. El valor del análisis
seminal porcino en las condiciones de explotación comercial. ITEA 22,
829-831.
GILMORE J.A., DU J., TAO J., PETER A.T., CRITSER J.K., 1996. Osmotic properties
of boar spermatozoa and their relevance to cryopreservation. J Reprod Fertil
107, 87-95.
GOTTARDI L., BRUNEL L., ZANELLI L., 1980. New dilution media for artificial
insemination in the pig. 9th ICAR. Madrid. 5, 49-53
HARRISON R.A.P., DOTT H.M., FOSTER G.C., 1978. Effect of ionic strength, serum
albumin and other macromolecules on the maintenance of motility and the surface
of mammalian spermatozoa in a simple medium. J Reprod Fert 52, 65–73.
HOFMO P.O., KOMMISRUD E., SEHESTED E., 1998. A field trial comparing the fertility
of fresh semen stored in BTS for 2-3 days and MR-A for 4-5 days. 15th IPVS Congress.
3, p 64.
HOFMO P.O., 1991. Commercial swine artificial insemination with liquid boar
semen in Norway. Reprod. Domest. Anim. Suppl 1, 317-320.
HUO L.J., MA X.H., YANG Z.M., 2002. Assessment of sperm viability, mitochondrial
activity, capacitation and acrosome intactness in extended boar semen during
long-term storage. Theriogenology 58, 1349-1360.
ITO T., NIWA T., KUDO A., 1948. Studies on artificial insemination in swine.
Zootech Exp Sta Res Bull 55, 1-74.
IVANOW E.I., 1907. De la fécondation artificielle chez les mammifères.
Arch Sci Biol 12, 377-511.
IVANOW E.I., 1922. On the use of artificial insemination for zootechnical purposes
in Russia. J Agric Sci 12, 244-256.
JOHNSON L.A., AALBERS J.G., GROOTE H.J.G., 1988. Artificial insemination of
swine: Fecundity of boar semen stored in Beltsville Thawing Solution (BTS),
modified modena (MM), or MR-A and inseminated on one, three and four days after
collection. Zuchthyg 23, 49-55.
JOHNSON L.A., AALBERS J.G., WILLEMS C.M., RADEMAKER J.H., REXROAD C.E. JR.,
1982. Use of boar spermatozoa for artificial insemination. III. Fecundity of
boar spermatozoa stored in Beltsville liquid and Kiev extender for three days
at 18ºC. J Anim Sci 54, 132-136.
JOHNSON L.A., WEITZE K.F., FISER P., MAXWELL W.M.C., 2000. Storage of boar semen.
Anim Reprod Sci 62, 143 –172.
KEMP B., SOEDE N.M., 1997. Consequences of variation in interval from insemination
to ovulation on fertilization in pigs. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 52, 79-89.
KORNIEWICZ D., SZCZESNIAK-FABIANCZYK B., SMORAG Z., 1996. The survival rate
and fertilizing capacity of boar semen diluted with different diluents. Reprod
Domest Anim 31, 273-274.
KUSTER C.E., ALTHOUSE G.C., 1999. The fecundity of porcine semen stored for
2 to 6 days in Androhep and X-Cell extenders. Theriogenology 52, 365-376.
LAFOREST J.P., ALLARD D., 1996. Comparison of four extenders for long-term storage
of fresh boar semen. Reprod Domest Anim 31, 275-276.
LEVIS D.G., 2000. Liquid Boar Semen Production: Current Extender Technology
and Where Do We Go From Here! In: Semen Boar Preservation IV. L.A. Johnson and
H. D. Guthrie, eds. Allen Press, Inc. Lawrence, KS. pp. 121-128.
LEWIS L.L., 1911. The viability of reproductive cells. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull.
Nº 96. Oklahoma Agriculture and Mechanical College. Stillwater. OK
LYCZYNSKI A., KOLAT K., 1996. Boar semen preservation in MR-A diluent. Reprod
Dom Anim 31, 271-272.
MARTÍN RILLO S., 1984. How AI is progressing in Spain. Pig Intern (May)
24-28.
MARTÍN RILLO S., SHOKOUHI V., GARCIA BOIX E., HERNANDEZ GIL R., ROMERO
L., 1998. Contamination of semen doses and its possible relationship with the
bacterial flora of the prepuce. 15th IPVS Congress. 3, p 60.
MARTÍNEZ E., RUIZ S., SEBASTIÁN J., SÁNCHEZ R., GARCÍA
C., MARTÍN S., 1986. Factores que afectan a la inseminación artificial
porcina. An Vet Murcia 2, 115-120.
MCKENZIE E.E., 1931. A method for collection boar semen. J Am Vet Assoc 78 (News
series 31), 244-246.
MILOVANOW V.K., 1938. Artificial insemination in domestic animals (published
in Russian). Seljhozgiz, Moscu.
MORETTI J., 1981. (cited by Johnson L.A., Aalberts J.G., 1984). Artificial insemination
of swine: fertility using several liquid semen diluents. 8th IPVS Congress Ghent,
Belgium, p 293.
NEWTH M.S., LEVIS D.G., 1999. Change in pH boar of semen extenders. 1999 Nebraska
Swine Report, pp 3-6.
Office International des Epizooties (OIE), 2002. International Animal Health
Code. 11th Edition.
PAULENZ H., KOMMISRUD E., HOFMO P.O., 2000. Effect of long-term storage at different
temperatures on the quality of liquid boar semen. Reprod Dom Anim 35, 83-85.
PETTIT M.J., PLANTE C., POLLARD J.W. 2000. Long term fresh extender development
by simplex optimisation. IV Int. Conf. Boar Semen Preservation. Beltsville.
p 16.
PIG INTERNATIONAL. 1998. How big is artificial insemination now? Pig Intern
28(2), 9-10.
PLISKO N.T., 1965. Method of prolonging the viability and fertilizing capacity
of boar spermatozoa. Svinovodstvo 9, 37-41.
POLGE C., 1956. Artificial insemination of pigs. Vet . Rec. 68, 62-76.
PURSEL V.G., JOHNSON L.A. 1975. Freezing of boar spermatozoa: fertilizing capacity
with concentrated semen and a new thawing procedure. J Anim Sci 40, 99-102.
PURSEL V.G., JOHNSON L.A., SCHULMAN L.L., 1973a. Effect of dilution, seminal
plasma and incubation period on cold shock susceptibility of boar spermatozoa.
J Anim Sci 37, 528-531.
PURSEL V.G., JOHNSON L.A., SCHULMAN L.L., 1973b. Fertilizing capacity of boar
semen stored at 15ºC. J Anim Sci 37, 532-535.
RATH D., 2002. Low dose insemination in the sow - a review. Reprod Domest Anim
37, 201-205.
RATTO J., JOKINEN L., 1990. Reports about number of swine inseminations and
farrowing results in Finland 1989, comparison between two diluents EDTA and
MR-A. Reprod Dom Anim Suppl 1, 365-368.
REED H.C.B., 1985. Current use of frozen boar semen. Future need of frozen boar
semen. Deep freezing of boar semen. Ed Johnson LA, Larsson K. Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences, pp 225-237.
REED H.C.B., 1990. Commercial requirements for an effective fresh semen diluent.
Reprod Dom Anim Suppl 1, 255-270.
REED H.C.B., CURNOCK R.M., 1990. Comparison of three liquid semen diluents in
a national semen delivery service in Great Britain. Reprod Dom Anim Suppl 1,
369-373.
REVELL S.G., GLOSSOP C.E., 1989. A long-time ambient temperature diluent for
boar semen. Anim Prod 48, 579-584.
RIGAU T., PIEDRAFITA J., REVERTER J., CANAL M., RODRÍGUEZ-GIL J.E., 1996.
The rate of L-lactate production: a feasible parameter for the fresh diluted
boar semen quality analysis. Anim Reprod Sci 43, 161-172.
RITCHER L.U., CLAUS H., 1990. Breed specific diluters as an indication for better
semen preservation. Reprod Dom Anim Suppl 1, 398.
RODIN I.M., LIPATOV V.I., 1935. Artificial insemination of pigs. Anim Breed
Abstr 4, 205.
ROUCO A., MUÑOZ A., 1998. Economic weights determination of zootechnical
parameters in pig production. 15th IPVS Congress. Birmingham. 3, p 8.
SEE M.T., 1996. A cost comparison of AI and natural service. Animal Science
Facts. No. ANS-96-809S. Agricultural Publications. NC State University.
WABERSKI D., 1997. Effects of semen components on ovulation and fertilization.
J Reprod Fertil Suppl 52, 105-109.
WABERSKI D., MEDING S., DIRKSEN G., 1994a. Fertility of long-term stored boar
semen: Influence of extenders (Androhep and Kiev), storage time and plasma droplets
in the semen. Anim Reprod Sci 36, 145-151.
WABERSKI D., WEITZE K.F., LIETMANN C., 1994b. The initial fertilizing capacity
of long-term stored liquid boar semen following pre and postovulatory insemination.
Theriogenology 41, 1367-1377.
WABERSKI D., WEITZE K.F., RATH D., SALLMANN H.P., 1989. Effect of bovine serum
albumin and zwitterionic buffers on stored liquid boar semen. Zuchthygiene 24,
128-133.
WEITZE K.F., 1990. Long- term storage of extended boar semen. Reprod Dom Anim
Suppl 1, 231-253.
WESTENDORF P., RICHTER L., TREU H., 1975. (Deep freezing of boar sperma. Laboratory
and insemination results using the Hülsenberger paillete method). Dtsch.
Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 82, 261-267. (in German).
WHITE I.G. 1993. Lipids and calcium uptake of sperm in relation to cold shock
and preservation: a review. Reprod Fertil Dev 5, 639-658.
ZENG W.X., TERADA T., 2001. Protection of boar spermatozoa from cold shock damage
by 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin. Theriogenology 55, 615-27.
Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research (2003) 1 (2):17-27
Author: Joaquín Gadea
(12 Sent)
Who saw this article? New!
MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
|