DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Different Inoculation Concentration of Escherichia coli on Boar Sperm Quality and Reproductive Performance in Sow

  • Sa, Soo Jin (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Choi, Sun Ho (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Hyun Jong (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Cho, Kyu Ho (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Hong, Joon Ki (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Du Wan (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Young Hwa (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Park, Jun Cheol (Swine Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Chung, Ki Hwa (Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2014.11.12
  • Accepted : 2014.11.26
  • Published : 2014.12.31

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of E. coli on boar sperm quality and reproductive performance in sows after artificial insemination. Three different levels of E. coli were artificially inoculated to semen with following concentrations; Control, 500, 5,000 and 50,000 colony forming unit (cfu)/ml. Semen samples were preserved at $17^{\circ}C$ for 5 days. Sperm motility was significantly decreased (p<0.05) on day 3 in the group inoculated with 5,000 cfu/ml compared to control groups. In all treatment groups, sperm motility was gradually decreased as storage time increased, but the decline pattern was more drastic in the groups inoculated with 5,000 and 50,000 cfu/ml groups from day 3 (p<0.05) compared to control group. After 3 day of storage at $17^{\circ}C$, sperm viability in sample inoculated with the highest concentration (50,000 cfu/ml) of bacteria was less (p<0.05) than that of control group. The pH of semen sample pH was maintained 7.2~7.5 in all groups during the experimental period. No differences (p>0.05) were found for both storage time and bacterial concentration. The pregnancy rate and live born piglets tend to decrease by increasing the concentration of E. coli in semen. In particular, the rate of pregnancy was lower in the group inoculated with 50,000 cfu/ml (58.3%) compare to the other groups (81.8, 75.0, 76.5%). These results suggest that the contamination of E. coli in boar semen negatively affects fertilizing ability of boar sperm and the reproductive performance obtained from sows after artificial insemination.

Acknowledgement

Grant : Study on management technology improvement of swine artificial insemination center

Supported by : Rural Development Administration

References

  1. Althouse GC, Kuster CE, Clarck SG, Weisiger RM (2000): Field investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 53:1167-1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00261-2
  2. Althouse GC, Lu KG (2005): Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 63:573-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.09.031
  3. Arredondo C, Fernandez A, Lazo L, Cruz E, Machado J (2001): Bacteriological studies of swine semen. Preliminar evaluation of the effect of Escherichia coli lectins on spermagglutination. Rev Cub Sal Animal 23:73-79.
  4. Dagnall GJR (1986): An investigation of the bacterial flora of the preputial diverticulum and of the semen of boars. M.Ph. Thesis. Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire.
  5. Kaur M, Tripathi KK, Bansal MR, Jain PK, Cupta KG (1986): Bacteriology of cervix in cases of infertility: effect on human sperm. Am J Reprod Immunol Microbiol 12:21-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.1986.tb00055.x
  6. Kuster CE, Althouse GC (1997): Sperm agglutination of extended semen caused by gentamicin resistant bacteria. In: Proceedings of the 28th American Association of Swine Practitioners Meeting, pp 293-295.
  7. Maes D, Nauwynck H, Rijsselaere T, Mateusen B, Vyt P, de Kruif A, Van Soom A (2008): Diseases in swine transmitted by artificial insemination: an overview. Theriogenology 70:1337-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.06.018
  8. Maroto Martin LO, Munoz EC, Cupere FD, Driessche EV, Echemendia-Blanco D, Machado Rodriguez JM, Beeckmans S (2010): Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Ani Reprod Sci 120:95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.03.008
  9. Mirjyn A. (1999): Stimulation and Detection of Heat in Gilts and Sows. Tech Report 12, NCSU.
  10. OIE (2001): Semen de vovinos. Codigo Zoosanitario Internacional. Parte 3. Titulo 3.2. Anexo 3.2.1. Disponible de: http://www.oie.int.
  11. Sepulveda L, Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Torner E, Bonet S (2013): How do different concentrations of Clostridium perfringens affect the quality of extended boar spermatozoa? Anim Reprod Sci 140:83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2013.04.013
  12. So KM, Sa SJ, Kim HJ, Chung KH, Jung BY, Son JH, Kim IC (2011): Effects of Escherichia coli contamination on extend porcine semen parameters. Reprod Dev Biol 35(4):479-483.
  13. Sone M, Kawarasaki T, Ogasa A, Nahara T (1989): Effects of bacteria-contaminated boar semen on reproductive performance. Jpn J Anim Reprod 35(3):159-164. https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd1977.35.159
  14. Waberski D, Weyand A, Seedorf J, Weitze KF (2010): Hygiene measures in boar semen production. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae 38 (Suppl. 1):1-7.