Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T05:43:53.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some biochemical aspects of the preservation of buffalo semen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. N. Srivastava  and
M. M. Raza Nasir
P. N. Srivastava
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P.
M. M. Raza Nasir
Affiliation:
Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Initial pH of buffalo semen as measured electrometrically is 7.2 ± 0.025 and the buffering capacity 1.40 ± 0.026. Sulphamezathine in glucose–egg yolk–bicarbonate diluent depressed fructolysis in buffalo semen. This depression is considered to be a factor in the better maintenance of motility in this than in other media investigated. The more alkaline pH of this medium also appears to be beneficial in preserving motility on storage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 1968 , pp. 277 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1942). The hydrogen ion concentration of the semen of the bull. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 32, 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1946). The buffer capacity and specific gravity of bull semen. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 36, 258–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. H. & Salisbury, G. W. (1948). The effect of sulphonamides upon the livability of spermatozoa and upon the control of bacteria in diluted bull semen. J. Dairy Sci. 31, 769–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gokhale, D. R. (1958). Glucose-Sodium bicarbonate and sulphamezathine buffer as a diluent of buffalo semen. Indian vet. J. 35, 573–81.Google Scholar
Kampschmidt, R. F., Mayer, D. T., Herman, H. A. & Diokerson, G. E. (1951). Viability of bull spermatozoa as influenced by electrolyte concentration, buffer efficiency and added glucose in storage media. J. Dairy Sci. 34, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodt, C. B. & Salisbury, G. W. (1946). The effect of sulphanilamide upon the livability and metabolism of bovine spermatozoa. J. Dairy Sci. 29, 285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushwaha, N. S., Mukherjee, D. P. & Bhattachabya, P. (1955). Seasonal variation in reaction time and semen qualities of buffalo-bulls. Indian J. vet. Sci. 25, 317–28.Google Scholar
Laing, J. A. (1944). Observations on the characteristics of the semen in relation to fertility in the bull. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 35, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, S. C. & Sharma, U. D. (1963). Relative efficacy of different buffers for the preservation of buffalo semen. Indian J. Dairy Sci. 16, 15–21.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1948). Fructose content and fructolysis in semen. Practical application in the evaluation of semen, quality. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 323–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1964). The biochemistry of semen and of the male reproductive tract. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Nayudu, P. R. V. (1961). Effect of preservation of semen in various diluents on livability, morphology and metabolism of buffalo spermatozoa. M.Sc. Thesis, Madras Univ.Google Scholar
Prabhu, S. S. & Bhattacharya, P. (1951). Comparison of the first and second ejaculates collected in rapid succession from the Indian Water buffalo Bos bubalis. Indian J. Vet. Sci. 21, 257–62.Google Scholar
Prabhu, S. S. & Bhattacharya, P. (1954). Influence of factors affecting sex drive on semen production of buffaloes. I. Physiological state of the ‘teaser’ cow. Indian J. vet. Sci. 24, 35–50.Google Scholar
Roy, A. & Bishop, M. W. H. (1954). Effect of glycine on the survival of the bull spermatozoa in vitro. Nature, Lond. 174, 746–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salisbury, G. W., Fuller, H. K. & Willett, E. L. (1941). Preservation of bovine spermatozoa in yolk citrate diluent and field results from its use. J. Dairy Sci. 24, 905–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, V. B. (1965). Effect of semen diluents on the preservability and morphology of cattle, buffalo and sheep spermatozoa. M.V. Sc. Thesis, Agra Univ.Google Scholar
Sengar, D. P. S. (1963). Studies on semen ejaculates taken in rapid succession from buffalo bulls. M.V.Sc. Thesis, Agra Univ.Google Scholar
Sharma, U. D. & Mahajan, S. C. (1961). In vitro preservation of buffalo semen. J. Reprod. Fert. 2, 205.Google Scholar
Smith, J. T., Mayer, D. T. & Herman, H. A. (1954). A comparison of the ability of certain egg yolk diluents to maintain optimum osmotic conditions during the storage of bull semen. J. Dairy Sci. 37, 684–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, P. N. & Prabhu, S. S. (1956). Diluters for buffalo semen. Curr. Sci. 25, 58–9.Google Scholar