Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T00:23:52.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The buffer capacity and the specific gravity of bull semen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

James Anderson
James Anderson
Affiliation:
Experimental Station, Naivasha, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There was a significant positive correlation between the buffer capacity and motility of sperm and a highly significant negative correlation between the buffer capacity and the pH. There was no correlation between the buffer capacity and the volume of the ejaculate or the number of sperm per c.mm. Specimens which maintained a good motility on storage had a better buffer capacity than those which did not.

The specific gravity of 125 semen specimens was 1·0337. There was a highly significant positive correlation between the specific gravity and the number of sperm per c.mm. and the percentage motility and a highly significant negative correlation between the specific gravity and the pH. There was no relationship between the specific gravity of semen and the volume of the ejaculate, or the pH change. In general, the higher the specific gravity of the seminal fluid, the better was motility maintained on storage. The higher the specific gravity, the lower was the pH and the better the buffer capacity of seminal fluid.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1946 , pp. 258 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

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

Anderson, J. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, H. G. & Hamilton, W. F. (1924). Amer. J. Physiol. 69, 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, H. G. & Hamilton, W. F. (1926). J. Biol. Chem. 69, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, H. G. & Hamilton, W. F. (1927). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 88, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easley, G. T., Mayer, D. T. & Bogart, R. (1942). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 3, 358.Google Scholar
Schersten, B. (1936). Skand. Arch. Physiol. 74 (Suppl. No. 9).Google Scholar
Sergin, N. P. (1935). Probl. Zivotn. no. 12, 100.Google Scholar
Smith, S. E. & Asdell, S. A. (1940). Cornell Vet. 30, 499Google Scholar
Willett, E. L. & Salisbury, G. W. (1942). Mem. Cornell Agric. Expt. Sta. no. 249.Google Scholar