Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T21:45:37.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Survival and fertility of bovine sperm kept at variable temperatures in coconut milk extender*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. Norman
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
C. E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
I. D. Porterfield
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
E. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
R. S. Dunbar
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
H. S. Min
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Dairy Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, U.S.A.
H. O. Dunn
Affiliation:
N. Y. Artificial Breeding Cooperative, Ithaca

Extract

Bovine spermatozoa aged for 6–7 days at room temperatures (18–30° C.) in a coconut milk extender retained their fertilizing capacity. However, their fertilizing ability appeared to be impaired by environmental hazards in the form of oxygen damage, exposure to visible light, and temperature shock. Protective measures developed and used in the preparation and in the storage of the sperm suspensions to minimize premature loss of sperm function involved the addition of catalase and egg yolk to the extender and the maintenance of cell suspensions in the dark in vials containing a minimal air space. The experimental evidence obtained with this improved coconut milk extender established its ability to support and sustain the fertilizing capacity of bovine sperm for 6–7 days at room temperatures at a level comparable to the fertilizing capacity of refrigerated sperm in milk-glycerol or egg yolk-citrate-glycine extenders. The economic importance of this room temperature diluent is suggested by the fact that it eliminates the costly refrigeration required to maintain stored and shipped bovine semen at 5° C.

Coconut milk extender modified by the addition of 5% egg yolk also proved to be a satisfactory storage medium for sperm at low temperatures. It was found to be superior to both egg yolk-citrate and skim-milk extenders in conserving motility at 5° C. The fertilizing capacity of Ayrshire and Brown Swiss sperm stored at 5° C. in coconut milk extender which contained 15% coconut milk and 5% egg yolk compared favourably with the fertilizing capacity reported for sperm stored at 5° C. in other more widely used diluents. The number of motile sperm recovered from this extender after freezing to −79° C. was comparable to the number of motile sperm recovered from the egg yolk-citrate and skim-milk test diluents. The results of this study indicate that coconut milk extender is a versatile, easily prepared medium which can be used to preserve functional sperm over a wide temperature range.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

REFERENCES

Campbell, R. C., Dott, H. M. & Glover, T. D. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 1.Google Scholar
Dunn, H. O. & Hafs, H. D. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 577.Google Scholar
Dunn, H. O., Norman, C., Goldberg, E. & Johnson, C. E. (1960). Int. J. Fert. 5 (4), 437.Google Scholar
Foote, R. H., Gray, Linda C., Young, D. C. & Dunn, H. O. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 1330.Google Scholar
Lardy, H. A. & Phillips, P. H. (1939). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32, 219.Google Scholar
Macleod, J. (1943). Amer. J. Physiol. 138, 512.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1954). The Biochemistry of Semen. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. J. & Van Demark, N. L. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 45.Google Scholar
Norman, C., Johnson, C. E., Porterfield, I. D. & Dunbar, R. S. Jr. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, C., Johnson, C. E., Porterfield, I. D. & Dunbar, R. S. Jr. (1959). Anat. Rec. 134, 616.Google Scholar
Norman, C. & Goldberg, E. (1959). Science, 130, 624.Google Scholar
Norman, C., Goldberg, E. & Porterfield, I. D. (1960). Anat. Rec. 137, 384.Google Scholar
O'Dell, W. T. & Almquist, J. O. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 652.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. H. & Lardy, H. A. (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 399.Google Scholar
Polge, C., Smith, A. U. & Parkes, A. S. (1949). Nature, Lond., 164, 666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polge, C. & Rowson, L. E. A. (1952 a). Nature, Lond., 169, 626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polge, C. & Rowson, L. E. A. (1952 b). Vet. Rec. 64, 851.Google Scholar
Tosic, J. & Walton, A. (1950). Biochem. J. 47, 199.Google Scholar
Van Demark, N. L. & Sharma, V. D. (1957). J. Dairy Sci. 40, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Demark, N. L., Salisbury, G. W. & Bratton, R. W. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar