Main Article Content
Semen collection management is affected on semen quality of bulls. The objective of this study was to compare time interval of semen collection on fresh and frozen-thawed semen quality. The semen was collected from six Holstein Friesian bulls and Charolais bulls by using artificial vagina. The whole semen was divided into 2 groups; group 1: 5-day collection interval and group 2: 2-day collection interval. The fresh and frozen-thawed semen were evaluated the semen quality under microscopic examination. The results of fresh semen had shown that 5-day collection interval group had significant higher semen volume and concentration than 2-day collection interval group (P<0.01). Furthermore, the semen qualities of frozen-thawed semen had shown that 5-day collection interval group had functional membrane integrity better than 2-day collection interval group (P<0.01). In conclusion, a long-time semen collection interval might be better with respect to semen volume, semen concentration and functional integrity of sperm membrane than that a short-time semen collection interval.
Publishing an article with open access in Veterinary Integrative Sciences leaves the copyright with the author. The article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0), which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited.
Birgit Fuerst-Waltl*, Hermann Schwarzenbacher, Christa Perner, Johann S¨olkner., 2005. Effects of age and environmental factors on semen production and semen quality of Austrian Simmental bulls. Animal Reproduction Science. 95, 27-37.
G. E. Seidel, JR. and R. H. Foote. 1969. Influence of Semen Collection Interval and Tactile Stimuli on Semen Quality and Sperm Output in Bulls. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University.
I. A. Malecki,*,† G. B. Martin,*,† and D. R. Lindsay*., 1997. Semen Production by the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). 2. Effect of Collection Frequency on the Production of Semen and Spermatozoa. Poultry Science. 76, 622–626.
J. JANKOVIČOVÁ, M. SIMON, J. ANTALÍKOVÁ. 2006. Methods for evalution of an acrosome reaction of bovine spermatozoa. Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovaca Universitas Agriculturae Nitriae.
ME Hossain*, MM Khatun, MM Islam, and OF Miazi., 2012. Semen characteristics of breeding bulls at the Central Cattle Breeding and Dairy Farm of Bangladesh. J. Anim. Sci. 1, 1-5.
Muhammad Zubair, Laeeq Akbar Lodhi, Ejaz Ahmad and Ghulam Muhammad., 2013. Hypo osmotic swelling test as screening for evaluation of semen of bull. Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies. 6, 124-128.
M.J.U Sarder., 2003. Studies on Semen Characteristics of Some Friesian Cross and Sahiwal Bulls for Artificial Insemination (AI). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 6, 566-570.
P. Walter Bravo,' Dante Flores, and Cesar Ordofiez., 1997. Effect of Repeated Collection on Semen Characteristics of Alpacas. Biology of reproduction. 57, 520-524.
Rapiphan Uavechanichkul. 2009. Semen quality analysis. Department of Livestock Development Knowledge Management. [online]. http://km.dld.go.th/th/images/stories/document/division/biotech/documents/semen/semenqcmanual.pdf
UMUT ÇAĞIN ARI, NECDET CANKAT LEHİMCİOĞLU, SAVAŞ YILDIZ, RECAİ KULAKSIZ, and YAVUZ ÖZTÜRKLER., 2011. Effects of semen collection interval on fresh and frozen semen parameters in Tushin Rams. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy. 55, 67-70.
Verstegen J, Iguer-Ouada M and Onclin K., 2002. Computer assisted analyzers in andrology research and veterinary practice. Theriogenology.57, 149-179