Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:31:00.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations On the Characteristics of the Semen in Relation to Fertility in the Bull

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A Laing
J. A Laing
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The characters of the semen of twenty-one bulls were compared with their fertility as expressed by the service rate—the number of services required for each conception.

2. It was found that, on the basis of the density of the semen, the total number of spermatozoa ejaculated, the motility and change in pH of the semen on incubation at 37° C, the animals could be divided into a higher fertility group with service rates from slightly more than 1·0 to about 3·5, and a lower fertility group with service rates from above 3·5 to ∞. Totally sterile animals could be detected.

3. It is suggested that other factors than the quality of the semen can vary fertility so as to give service rates at different levels from 1·0 to about 3·5. Below a certain level of semen quality fertility appears to be impaired no matter what other factors operate.

4. No relationship could be detected between the percentage of abnormal spermatozoa ejaculated and the service rate.

5. Standards for use in diagnosis of fertility are suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 1945 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCE

Anderson, J. (1941). Vet. Rec. 53, 198.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1942). Vet. Rec. 54, 317.Google Scholar
Baker, A. L. & Quesenberry, J. R.. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, A. D. (1933). Probl. Zivotn. no. 1, 77 (Anim. Breed. Abatr. 1, 82).Google Scholar
Bernstein, A. D. & Slovokotov, I. (1939). Trans. Chair Vet. Path., Orenberg Vet. Inst. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 3, 478).Google Scholar
Chang, M. C. & Walton, A. (1940). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 129, 517.Google Scholar
Davis, H. P. & Williams, N. K. (1939). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 232.Google Scholar
Donham, C. R., Sims, B. T. & Shaw, J. N. (1931). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 31, 665.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (1927). Brit. J. Exp. Biol. 5, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1930). Brit. J. Exp. Biol. 7, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. & Asdell, S. A. (1926). Brit. J. Exp. Biol. 4, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, E. E. (1935). Biochem. Z. 270, 101.Google Scholar
Ivanov, E. E. (1936). Bull. Soc. Chim. biol, Paris, 18, 1613.Google Scholar
Lagerlöf, N. (1934). Acta path. microbiol. Scand. (Suppl.), p. 19.Google Scholar
Lane-Roberts, C.Sharman, A., Walker, K. & Wiesner, B. P. (1939). Sterility and Impaired Fertility. London.Google Scholar
Lardy, H. A. & Phillips, P. H. (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 873.Google Scholar
Macgregor, J. J. (1941). Vet. J. 97, 340.Google Scholar
Macirone, C. & Walton, A. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. (1937). Probl. Zivotn. no. 3, 11 (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 5, 468).Google Scholar
Moench, G. L. & Holt, H. (1931). Amer. J. Obstet. Gynaec. 22, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, B. H., Mayer, D. T. & McKenzie, F. F. (1940). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 210.Google Scholar
New Zealand Dairy Board (1941). 17th Ann. Rep. p. 52.Google Scholar
New Zealand Dairy Board (1942). 18th Ann. Rep. p. 31.Google Scholar
Pincus, G. (1936). The Eggs of Mammals. New York.Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Willett, E. L. & Seligman, J. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shergin, N. P. (1937). Probl. Zivotn. no. 12, 126 (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 7, 18).Google Scholar
Simeone, F. A.. & Young, W. C. (1931). J. Exp. Biol. 8, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadie, W. C., O'Brien, H. & Laug, E. P. (1931). J. Biol. Chem. 91, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. C. & Herman, H. A. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. (1933). The Technique of Artificial Insemination. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1938). Folia Morphologica, 8, 270.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1942). Artificial Insemination of Sheep, Cattle and Horses. London.Google Scholar
Walton, A. & Edwards, J. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 254.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1938). Proc. 7th Ann. Meeting of Sheep Farmers, Massey Agric. Coll., New Zealand.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1939). Proc. 8th Ann. Meeting of Sheep Farmers, Massey Agric. Coll., New Zealand.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1940). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Williams, W. W. & Savage, A. (1925). Cornell Vet. 25, 353.Google Scholar