Premium
Comparison of Computer‐assisted Sperm Motility Analysis Parameters in Semen from Belgian Blue and Holstein–Friesian Bulls
Author(s) -
Hoflack G,
Opsomer G,
Rijsselaere T,
Van Soom A,
Maes D,
De Kruif A,
Duchateau L
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
reproduction in domestic animals
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.546
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1439-0531
pISSN - 0936-6768
DOI - 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00745.x
Subject(s) - semen , andrology , sperm , semen analysis , motility , sperm motility , biology , zoology , medicine , infertility , genetics , pregnancy
Contents Subjective microscopic sperm motility results have recently been demonstrated to differ between Holstein–Friesian (HF) and Belgian Blue (BB) bulls. However, such assessments are rather imprecise. In the present study, sperm motility was assessed objectively by means of the Hamilton Thorne CEROS version 12.2c computer‐assisted sperm motility analyser (CASA), and differences between the BB and HF breed could also be demonstrated. Higher percentages of both totally (p < 0.0001) and progressively (p < 0.0001) motile spermatozoa were encountered in the HF breed compared with the BB breed. Furthermore, a lower kinetic efficiency of the BB spermatozoa, evidenced by a lower beat cross‐frequency (p = 0.0007) combined with a higher lateral head displacement (p = 0.0015), was the basis for the lower velocity of BB sperm cells. Additionally, BB spermatozoa move less straight forward, resulting in a lower straightness (p < 0.0001). No sperm motility differences were observed between age groups within the BB breed. The breed differences were observed in the examined bull populations residing at AI centres, in Belgium for the BB bulls and in the Netherlands for the HF bulls. However, these bull populations are selected for fertility. A similar pattern was observed in an unselected bull population of both breeds, although these differences were mostly non‐significant for the different CASA parameters. Nevertheless, these data suggest that a genetic component might be responsible for the observed sperm motility breed differences.