Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12749/RDB.2013.37.4.263

Artificial Insemination with Low-Dose Semen does not affect Swine Reproductive Performances  

Chung, Ki-Hwa (Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology)
Lee, Il-Joo (Darby Genetics Inc.)
Sa, Soo-Jin (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Kim, In-Cheul (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
Jung, Byeong-Yeal (Animal Disease Diagnostic Division, Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine & Inspection Agency)
Son, Jung-Ho (Noah Biotech Inc.)
Publication Information
Abstract
Pig producers have been shown keen interest of the number of spermatozoa in a semen dose since pig artificial insemination introduce. However, determining the minimal number of spermatozoa need per AI without detrimental effect on overall reproductive performances is not an easy question to answer. To increase the efficiency of semen utilization in pig AI, optimum number of spermatozoa per dose needed to determine. The objective of this study was to determine the reproductive performance and factors that affect on-farm application of low-dose semen insemination in sows. Data were collected from Darby Genetics AI studs from 4th of June to 7th of July, 2012 (n=401). The numbers of parturition were 84, 234 and 83 in sows inseminated with doses of $1.5{\times}10^9$, $2.0{\times}10^9$ and $2.5{\times}10^9$ spermatozoa in 100ml extender, respectively. There were no significant differences on reproductive performances such as gestation period, total born, total born alive, stillbirth and mummy in sows inseminated with different semen doses. The average number of born alive was 10.5, 11.0 and 10.4 from sows inseminated with $1.5{\times}10^9$, $2.0{\times}10^9$ and $2.5{\times}10^9$ sperms, respectively. Also, number of spermatozoa per dose did not affect litter size (p>0.10). There were no significant differences of maternal genetic line difference on gestation period, total number born, number born alive, born dead and mummy. The estimated correlation coefficients of the different semen doses with total number born, number born alive, born dead and mummy were r=-0.00, -0.01, 0.02 and 0.02, respectively. Taken together, the result of this study suggested that when semen was appropriately inseminated after induced ovulation, insemination with low-dose ($1.5{\sim}2.0{\times}10^9$) semen dose not adversely affect sow's fertility.
Keywords
Sperm concentration; Semen dose; Pig reproductive performances; Artificial insemination;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Alm K, Peltoniemi O, Koskinen E, Andersson, M. (2006): Porcine field fertility with two different insemination doses and the effect of sperm morphology. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 41: 210-213, ISSN 0936-6768.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Althouse GC (2008): Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 43(Suppl. 2):374-378.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Kim IC, Sa SJ, Kang K, Kim SH, Bae SJ, Kim DS, Kim SJ, Min CS, Son JH, Chung KH (2011): Current status of swine artificial insemination(AI) in Korea. Reprod Dev Biol 35(3):227-232.
4 Johnson, Guthrie HD, Lawrence KS, Soede NM, Steverink DWB, Langendijk P, Kemp B (2000): Optimized insemination strategies in swine AI. Pages 185 192 in Boar Semen Preservation IV. L. A. Johnson and H. D. Guthrie, ed. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS.
5 Kommisrud E, Paulenz H, Sehested E, Grevle I (2002): Influence of boar and semen parameters on motility and acrosome integrity in liquid boar semen stored for five days. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 43:49-55, ISSN 0044-605X.   DOI
6 Kondracki S (2003): Breed differences in semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination in Poland. Pig News and Information 24:119N-122N, ISSN 0143-9014.
7 Diemer T, Huwe P, Ludwig M, Schroeder-Printzen I, Michelmann HW, Schiefer HG, Weidner W (2003): Influence of autogenous leucocytes and Escherichia coli on sperm motility parameters in vitro. Andrologia 35:100-105.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Levis DG, Burroughs S, Williams S (2002): Use of intra-uterine insemination of pigs: Pros, cons & economics. Pages 39-62 in Proc. American Assoc. of Swine Vet. Kansas City, MO.
9 Maroto Martí LO, Munoz EC, Cupere FD, Driessche EV, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodríuez JM, Beeckmans S (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Ani Reprod Sci 120:95-104.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 OIE. (2001): Terrestrial animal health code. Chapter 4.6. Collection and processing of porcine semen. http ://www.oie.int/
11 SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 9.3. (2000): SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
12 Steverink DWB, Bouwman EG, Soede NM, Kemp B (1997): The effect of semen backflow on fertilization results in sows. Page 94 in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Pig Reprod. Kerkrade, The Netherlands.
13 Xu X, Pommier S, Arbov T, Hutchings B, Sotto W, Foxcroft G (1998): In vitro maturation and fertilization techniques for assessment of semen quality and boar fertility. J of Anim Sci 76:3079-3089.   DOI