JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74 No. 11 3827-3835
© 1991 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vogler, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by McGilliard, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vogler, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by McGilliard, M. L.

Effects of Scrotal Insulation on Viability Characteristics of Cryopreserved Bovine Semen

C. J. Vogler 1, R. G. Saacke 1, J. H. Bame 1, J. M. Dejarnette 1, and M. L. McGilliard 1

1 Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24061

The effect of a 48-h scrotal insulation on spermatozoal viability (motility and acrosomal integrity), before and after semen cryopreservation, was studied in six young Holstein bulls whose semen was collected twice in succession at 3-d intervals. Motility and acrosomal integrity were measured before and after incubation of semen at 37°C for 3 h. For assessment of results, collection days were grouped: period 1 (control) = d –6, –3, and 0, where d 0 = initiation of scrotal insulation after semen collection; period 2 = d 3,6, and 9 (sperm presumed in the epididymis or rete testis during scrotal insulation); period 3 = d 12, 15,...39 (sperm presumed in spermatogenesis during scrotal insulation). Semen was cryopreserved each collection day until morphologically abnormal cells exceeded 50% of the ejaculate (d 12 to 21). Semen viability before and after freezing was lower in period 3 than in period 1 (P < .05). These differences coincided with the appearance in period 3 of abnormal sperm morphology and depressed undiluted semen motility, which began on d 12 (P < .01). Semen collected during period 2 that was extended but unfrozen did not differ from that collected during period 1 in morphology or viability. However, for frozen semen, period 2 was significantly poorer than period 1 for both viability measurements, but only after incubation for 3 h at 37°C postthaw (P < .05). We conclude that epididymal sperm are adversely affected by elevated testicular temperatures, as noted by their decreased ability to maintain motility and acrosomal integrity following cryopreservation.

Key Words: bovine • thermal stress • semen viability • frozen semen

Submitted on May 9, 1991
Accepted on June 14, 1991







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.