Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 50 issue 3 (june 2016) : 434-437

Semen quality and fertility of Bama miniature pig (Sus scrofa domestica)

Shibin Zhang, Kuonan Guo, Deying Kong1, Yu Liu, Haitao Shang*, , Hong Wei*
1<p>Department of Laboratory Animal Science, College of Basic Medical Science, Third Military Medical University, Shapingba, Chongqing 400038, China.</p>
Cite article:- Zhang Shibin, Guo Kuonan, Kong1 Deying, Liu Yu, Shang* Haitao, Wei* Hong (2015). Semen quality and fertility of Bama miniature pig (Sus scrofa domestica) . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 50(3): 434-437. doi: 10.18805/ijar.7494.

ABSTRACT

Semen quality and fertility of Bama miniature pig and the effect of season on these parameters were determined in this study. Results were as follows: the overall mean ejaculate volume, 55.71 ± 15.21 ml; sperm concentration, 0.66 ± 0.22 × 108/ml; sperm motility, 65.39% ± 16.45%; abnormal sperm percentage, 12.16% ± 7.70%; farrowing rate, 76.44%; litter size, 7.74 ± 2.46. It showed that the semen quality and fertility of Bama miniature pigs were lower than the normal level of the larger commercial and local breeds. In terms of the effect of season, we noted that the semen quality and fertility of Bama miniature pigs were not worst in summer. This may indicate that Bama miniature pig is a relative heat-tolerant breed in comparison to larger commercial and local breeds. These findings in this study could provide reference material for improve management and husbandry in practice and for using Bama miniature pigs as animal model especially in male fertility studies.

REFERENCES


  1. Bode, G., Clausing, P., Gervais, F., Loegsted, J., Luft, J., Nogues, V., Sims, J. and Project, R. (2010). The utility of the minipig as an animal model in regulatory toxicology. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods, 62: 196-220.

  2. Boe-Hansen, G. B., Ersbøll, A. K., Greve, T. and Christensen, P. (2005). Increasing storage time of extended boar semen reduces sperm DNA integrity. Theriogenology, 63: 2006-2019.

  3. Borg, K., Lunstra, D. and Christenson, R. (1993). Semen characteristics, testicular size, and reproductive hormone concentrations in mature duroc, meishan, fengjing, and minzhu boars. Biol. Reprod., 49: 515-521.

  4. Ciereszko, A., Ottobre, J. S. and Glogowski, J. (2000). Effects of season and breed on sperm acrosin activity and semen quality of boars. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 64: 89-96.

  5. Claus, R. and Weiler, U. 1984. Influence of light and photoperiodicity on pig prolificacy. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl., 33: 185-197.

  6. Dorado, J., Acha, D., Ortiz, I., Galvez, M. J., Carrasco, J. J., Diaz, B., Gomez-Arrones, V., Calero-Carretero, R. and Hidalgo, M. (2013). Relationship between conventional semen characteristics, sperm motility patterns and fertility of Andalusian donkeys Equus asinus. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 143: 64-71.

  7. Forster, R., Ancian, P., Fredholm, M., Simianer, H., Whitelaw, B. and Project, R. (2010). The minipig as a platform for new technologies in toxicology. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods, 62: 227-235.

  8. Ganderup, N. C., Harvey, W., Mortensen, J. T. and Harrouk, W. (2012). The Minipig as Nonrodent Species in Toxicology-    Where Are We Now? Int. J. Toxicol., 31: 507-528.

  9. Glogowski, J., Falkowski, J., Rotkiewicz, T., (1997). Aktywnosc fosfataz w plazmie nasienia knurow w cyklu rocznym i ich zwiazek z podstawowymi wyznacznikami jakosciowymi ejakulatow. Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., 3: 85-95.

  10. Jørgensen, K. D., Kledal, T., Svendsen, O. and Skakkebæk, N. (1998). The Göttinge Minipig as a model for studying effects on male fertility. Scand J Lab Anim Sci, 25: S161-S169.

  11. Knecht, D., Srodon, S. and Duzinski, K. (2014). The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. South African Journal of Animal Science, 44: 1-9.

  12. Kozdrowski, R. and Dubiel, A. (2004). The effect of season on the properties of wild boar Sus scrofa L. semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 80: 281-289.

  13. Kunavongkrit, A. and Prateep, P. (1995). Influence of ambient temperature on reproductive efficiency in pigs:1 boar semen quality. Pig Journal, 35.

  14. Morrison, S. (1984). Cycling ambient temperature effect on boar semen. Anim. Prod, 38: 121-132.

  15. Pinho, R. O., Shiomi, H. H., Lima, D. M. A., Costa, E. V., Chaya, A. Y., Lopes, P. S., Guimaraes, S. E. F. and Guimaraes, J. D. (2013). Sexual behavior and seminal quality of Piau boars. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research, 8: 357-361.

  16. Svendsen, O. (2006). The minipig in toxicology. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol., 57: 335-339.

  17. Trudeau, V. and Sanford, L. M. (1986). Effect of season and social environment on testis size and semen quality of the adult Landrace boar. J. Anim. Sci., 63: 1211-1219.

  18. Tsakmakidis, I. A., Lymberopoulos, A. G. and Khalifa, T. A. A. (2010). Relationship between sperm quality traits and field-    fertility of porcine semen. J. Vet. Sci., 11: 151-154.

  19. Wang, X., Cao, H. H., Geng, S. M. and Li, H. B. (2004). Genetic diversity of 10 indigenous pig breeds in China by using microsatellite markers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 17: 1219-1222.

  20. Wettemann, R., Wells, M., Omtvedt, I., Pope, C. and Turman, E. (1976). Influence of elevated ambient temperature on reproductive performance of boars. J. Anim. Sci., 42: 664-669.

  21. Wu, F. C., Wei, H., Gan, S. X. and Wang, A. D. (2001). Analysis of genetic diversity of Bama miniature pigs and Guizhou miniature pigs by RAPD. Shi Yan Sheng Wu Xue Bao, 34: 115-119.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)