| Summary: | Cryopreserved sperm plays a pivotal role in dairy goats breeding programs. The
processes of cooling to 4 °C (C) and freezing (F) in liquid nitrogen (LN) vapor may be
achieved by using different methods some of them more economic and simpler (beaker
(B) in a cooling chamber at 4 °C and polystyrene (P) box with LN) and some others more
expensive and sophisticated (programmable refrigerated water bath (WB) and freezer
(PF)). In this study, we compared the quality of goat sperm cryopreserved with a
skimmed milk-glucose-glycerol extender and four cryopreservation protocols: B-P, BPF,
WB-P, WB-PF. Five goat males from Murciano-Granadina breed were used,
processing two ejaculates per male. Total (TM, %) and progressively motile sperm (PM;
%) as well as the average path velocity (VAP; m/s) were determined with a CASA
system and acrosome reacted sperm (AR; %) was determined with the fluorescent stain
FITC-PNA and flow cytometry [1]. Data were analyzed using ANOVA with C (2 levels)
and F methods (2 levels) and their interaction, session (5 levels) and male (5 levels) as
fixed effects. Interaction effect was not significant. Similar values for the two C (B and
WB) and the two F methods (P and PF) were observed for TM (61 to 62% ± 1.9), PM (44
to 46% ± 2.2) and VAP (68 to 71 m/s ± 3.2). The two C methods gave similar AR sperm
(7.6 for B and 7.3 for WB) but more AR sperm were observed (p < 0.05) when freezing
in P box (7.8% ± 0.27) than in PF (7.1 ± 0.27). In conclusion, any of the protocols tested
is equally effective for cryopreserving goat buck sperm. Acknowledgements: AMURVAL,
GVA-IVIA (52201K) co-funded by the EU through OP ERDF of the CV 2021-2027 and
CEU Universities (INDI2140).
|
|---|