Abdul MALIK, Abd Wahid HARON, Rosnina YUSOFF, M. NESA, Muhammad BUKAR, Azhar KASIM

Evaluation of the ejaculate quality of the red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, and bantam chicken in Malaysia

The objective of this study was to investigate the semen quality of 3 chicken breeds: the red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, and bantam chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). A total of 27 cocks, including 9 cocks each of red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, and bantam chicken, were used in this study. Semen was collected once a week by dorso-abdominal massage method. The semen was evaluated for volume, concentration, motility, live/dead ratio, and percentage abnormalities. There were no significant differences in the semen volume and general motility among the 3 breeds. However, the semen concentration was significantly different between the red jungle fowl (4.44 × 109 sperm/mL) and bantam chicken breeds (1.83 × 109). The percentage of forward motility in the red jungle fowl was significantly higher than that of the domestic chicken and bantam chicken, while the percentage of spermatozoa with rotating motility was significantly higher in the bantam chicken and domestic chicken. It was concluded that the semen concentration, individual motility, and total abnormalities were significantly different among bantam chicken, domestic chicken, and red jungle fowl and the semen volume and concentration was highest in the red jungle fowl.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Key words: Semen collection, semen evaluation, semen quality, red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, Malaysian bantam chicken

Evaluation of the ejaculate quality of the red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, and bantam chicken in Malaysia

Keywords:

Key words: Semen collection, semen evaluation, semen quality, red jungle fowl, domestic chicken, Malaysian bantam chicken,

PDF

___

Brillard, J.P., McDaniel, G.R.: The reliability and efficiency of various methods for estimating spermatozoa concentration. Poult. Sci., 1985; 64: 155–158.
Rowe, M., Swaddle, J.P., Pruett-Jones, S., Webster, M.S.: Plumage coloration, ejaculate quality and reproductive phenotype in the red-backed fairy-wren. J. Anim. Behav., 2010; 79: 1239–1246.
Hazary, R.C., Wishart, G.J.: Assay of sperm quality in the domestic fowl by MTT reduction. Br. Poult. Sci., 2001; 42: 111–
McIntyre, D.R.: Selling sires by the dose. In: Bakst, M.R., Wishart, G.J., Eds. Proceedings of First International Symposium on the Artificial Insemination of Poultry. Poultry Science Association, Savoy, IL, USA. 1995; 123–127.
Bahr, J.M., Bakst, M.R.: Poultry. In: Hafez, E.S.E., Hafez, B., Eds. Reproduction in Farm Animals. Lea & Fibiger, Philadelphia. 1987: 379–497.
McDaniel, G.R.: Managing broiler breeders for maximum fertility. World Poult., 1995; 9: 25–27.
Mellor, S.: Selecting males by sperm quality. World. Poult., 2001; 17: 32–34.
Jones, M.E., Mench, J.A.: Behavioral correlates of male mating success in a multisire flock as determined by DNA fingerprinting. Poult. Sci., 1991; 70: 1493–1498.
Cheng, K.M., Burns, J.T.: Dominance relationship and mating behavior of domestic cocks: a model to study mate-guarding and sperm competition in birds. Condor, 1988; 90: 697–704.
Guhl, A.M., Warren, D.C.: Number of offspring sired by cockerels related to social dominance in chickens. Poult. Sci., 1946; 25: 460–472.
Johnsen, T.S., Zuk, M., Fessler, E.A.: Social dominance, male behaviour and mating in mixed-sex flocks of red jungle fowl. Behaviour, 2001; 138: 1–18.
Leonard, M.L., Zanette, L.: Female mate choice and male behaviour in domestic fowl. Anim. Behav., 1998; 56: 1099– 1
Kratzer, D.D., Craig, J.V.: Mating behavior of cockerels: effects of social status, group size and group density. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 1980; 6: 49–62.
Birkhead, T.R., Martinez, J.G., Burke, T., Froman, D.P.: Sperm mobility determines the outcome of sperm competition in the domestic fowl. Proc. Biol. Sci., 1999; 266: 1759–1764.
Setioko, A.R., Hetzel, D.J.S.: The effect of collection method and housing system on semen production and fertility of Alabio drakes. Br. Poult. Sci.,1984; 25: 167–172.
Lake, P.E.: A cytochemical examination of spermatozoa of the domestic fowl. Res. Vet. Sci., 1966; 7: 121–127.
Saeid, J.M., Al-Soudi, K.A.: Seasonal variation in semen characteristics of White Leghorn, New Hampshire and indigenous chicken in Iraq. Br. Poult. Sci., 1975; 16: 97–102.
Pawluczuk, A., Grunder, A.A.: Research note: Comparison of three methods of collecting semen from ganders. Poult. Sci., 1989; 68: 1714–1717.
Burrows, W.H., Quinn, J.P.: The collection of spermatozoa from the domestic fowl and turkey. Poult. Sci., 1937; 16: 9–24.
Noirault, J., Brillard, J.P.: Effects of frequency of semen collection on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of semen on turkey breeder males. Poult. Sci., 1999; 78: 1034– 10
Mantovani, C., Cerolini, S., Bellagamba, F., Mangiagalli, M.G., Cavalchini, L.G.: Evaluation of pheasant semen production during the reproductive season. Reprod. Nutr. Dev., 1993; 33: 503–509.
Munro, S.S.: Functional changes in fowl sperm during their passage through the excurrent ducts of the male. J. Exp. Zool., 1938; 79: 71–92.
Tuttle, E.M., Pruett-Jones, S., Webster, M.S.: Cloacal protuberances and extreme sperm production in Australian fairy-wrens. Proc. Biol. Sci., 1996; 263: 1359–1364.
Gee, G.F., Bertschinger, H., Donoghue, A.M., Blanco, J., Soley, J.: Reproduction in nondomestic birds: physiology, semen collection, artificial insemination and cryopreservation. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev., 2004; 15: 47–101.
Omeje, S.S.I., Marire, B.N.: Evaluation of the semen characteristics of adult cocks of different genetic backgrounds. Theriogenology, 1990; 3: 1111–1118.
Sturkie, P.D.: Avian Physiology. 3rd edn., Springer-Verlag, New York. 1976; 334–339.
Lake, P.E.: Male genital organs. Form and Function in Birds, 1981; 2: 2–61.
Froman, D.P., Feltmann, A.J.: Sperm mobility: a quantitative trait of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Biol. Reprod., 1998; 58: 376–384.
Holsberger, D.R., Donoghue, A.M., Froman, D.P., Ottinger, M.A.: Assessment of ejaculate quality and sperm characteristics in turkeys: sperm mobility phenotype is independent of time. Poult. Sci., 1998; 77: 1711–1717.
King, L.M., Kirby, J.D., Froman, D.P., Sonstegard, T.S., Harry, D.E., Darden, J.R., Marini, P.J., Walker, R.M., Rhoads, M.L., Donoghue, A.M.: Efficacy of sperm mobility assessment in commercial flocks and the relationship of sperm mobility and insemination dose with fertility in turkeys. Poult. Sci., 2000; 79: 1797–1802.
Egbunike, C.N., Oluyemi, J.A.: Comparative studies of the reproductive capacity of the Nigerian and exotic poultry breeds. Nig J. Anim. Prod., 1979; 6: 47–51.
Howarth, B.J.: Fertilizing ability of cock spermatozoa from the testis, epididymis, and vas deferens following intramagmal insemination. Biol. Reprod., 1983; 28: 586–590.
Van Voorst, A., Leenstra, K.R.: Fertility rate of daily collected and cryopreserved fowl semen. Poult Sci., 1995; 74: 136–140.
Bakst, M.R,. Cecil, H.C.: Technique for semen evaluation: semen storage, and fertility determination. Poult. Sci. Assoc., 1997; 419–426.
Tselutin, K.L., Narubina, Mavrodina, T., Tur, B.: Cryopreservation of poultry semen. Br. Poult. Sci., 1995; 36: 805–811.
Kuster, C.E., Singer, R.S., Althouse, G.C.: Determining sample size for the morphological assessment of sperm. Theriogenology, 2004; 61: 691–703.
Lukaszewicz, E.: Study of diluents of cock’s semen storage in the light of laboratory estimation and fertility rate. Poult. Sci., 1988: 43–59.