| dc.description.abstract |
Semen processed with procedures permitting a flexible thaw method is used to breed millions of cows yearly. ?Pocket thawing? is widely used as an alternative to warm-water thawing with such semen. To pocket thaw, a straw is retrieved from cryostorage, immediately wrapped in a folded paper towel, and moved to a thermally protected pocket for 2 to 3 min of thawing within the pocket before AI gun loading. Published field data are lacking for comparisons of such a thaw method with those for semen prepared to permit flexible-thawing. We measured the effect of warm-water or pocket thaw on conception rate in four dairy heifer herds using semen prepared with methods previously optimized for flexible-thawing success. Semen processing (Anderson S et al. 1994 J. Dairy Sci. 77, 2302?2307) includes two-step whole-milk extension, static vapor tank freezing (0.5-mL straws), and IMV Digitcool mechanical freezing (0.25-mL straws). It is unclear which specific processing steps permit flexible thawing. These procedures have been developed using breeding results from decades of field trials by professional inseminators using both pocket and warm-water thaw. Semen prepared from each of 12 sires produced equal straw units at 10 and 15 million total sperm per straw, in both 0.5- and 0.25-mL straw packages. Professional inseminators used each combination evenly over 16 months. Additional commercial semen (55% of total) from the same source was used. The thaw methods alternated weekly. Thaw effect on conception status, from 70 day non-return data for 11,215 services (67.6% conception rate), was estimated by a generalized linear mixed model. Neither thaw method nor total sperm per straw significantly affected conception rate (P = 0.658, 0.769, respectively). Bull, herd, inseminator within herd, year, season, and straw size did significantly affect conception rate (P < 0.05). No thaw method interactions with herd, sperm number, season, and straw package size were significant (P = 0.297, 0.526, 0.365, 0.723, respectively). This suggests that if semen has been prepared with procedures specific to flexible-thawing, it can be either pocket thawed or warm-water thawed within a range of herdsman or inseminator practices, season, or straw packaging choices. Even at 10 million, the lowest total sperm per straw, pocket thaw was equally as successful as warm-water thaw. We generally observe that in vitro sperm quality, as expected, is maximal for rapidly thawed straws, with slower thawing resulting in lower values. However, while it appears that conventional measures of in vitro semen quality are improved with fast thaw rates, these measures do not appear to correspond to higher in vivo fertility for semen prepared intentionally to be flexibly thawed. We conclude that, for semen prepared with procedures that permit flexible thawing, the thaw method, whether pocket or warm-water thaw, does not affect conception under commercial conditions and with routine semen handling methods. We thank the herd owners and their staff, the inseminators, and Hap Allen, Ron Hunt, Gordon Nickerson, and Bryan Krick of Genex for their help and cooperation. |
|