Seminal attributes and sperm morphology of Agonda Goan pigs

References

• Althouse GC, Lu KG. 2005. Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology. 63:573–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierła JB, Giżejewski Z. 2007. Differences in spermatozoon: physiology or pathology? Med Weter. 63:1408–1411.
   Google Scholar
• Chakurkar E. 2009. Synchronization of estrus in local and Large White Yorkshire sows under coastal climatic conditions. Indian J Anim Reprod. 30:39–41.
   Google Scholar
• Chakurkar EB, Naik PK, Swain BK, Singh NP. 2013. Effect of feeding standard grower diet on the performance of Large White Yorkshire and Goa local (50% cross) pigs. Indian Vet J. 90:131–132.
   Google Scholar
• Colenbrander B, Kemp B. 1990. Factors influencing semen quality in pigs. J Reprod Fertil. Suppl. 40:105–115.
   Google Scholar
• De Vos A, Van De Velde H, Joris H, Verheyen G, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. 2003. Influence of individual sperm morphology on fertilization, embryo morphology, and pregnancy outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 79:42–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frangez R, Gider T, Kosec M. 2005. Frequency of boar ejaculate collection and its influence on semen quality, pregnancy rate and litter size. Acta Vet Brno. 74:265–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomendio M, Roldan ER. 1991. Sperm competition influences sperm size in mammals. Proc Biol Sci. 243:181–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock J, Hovell G. 1959. The collection of boar semen. Vet Rec. 71:664–665.
   Google Scholar
• Hirai M, Boersma A, Hoeflich A, Wolf E, Foll J, Aumuller TR, Braun J. 2001. Objectively measured sperm motility and sperm head morphometry in boars (Sus scrofa): relation to fertility and seminal plasma growth factors. J Androl. 22:104–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondracki S, Iwanina M, Wysokińska A, Huszno M. 2012. Comparative analysis of Duroc and Pietrain boar sperm morphology. Acta Vet Brno. 81:195–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondracki S, Wysokińska A. 2005. Characterization of sperm abnormalities of boars with regard of age and breed (in Polish). Folia Univ Agric Stetin Zootech. 243:97–104.
   Google Scholar
• Kumaresan A, Bujarbaruah KM, Pathak KA, Das A, Bardoloi RK. 2009. Integrated resource-driven pig production systems in a mountainous area of Northeast India: production practices and pig performance. Trop Anim Health Prod. 41:1187–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson K. 1986. Evaluation of boar semen. 2nd ed. London: WB Saunders Company.
   Google Scholar
• Nutrient Requirements of Swine: 10th Revised Edition. 1998. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nwakpu P, Onu N. 2007. Utilization of Nigerian native pig in breeding 1. A genetic assessment of crossbred heterosis in growth and litter size. Res J Anim Sci. 1:139–145.
   Google Scholar
• Ostermeier GC, Sargeant GA, Yandell BS, Evenson DP, Parrish JJ. 2001. Relationship of bull fertility to sperm nuclear shape. J Androl. 22:595–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyeyemi MO, Okediran BS. 2007. Testicular parameters and sperm morphology of chinchilla rabbit fed with different planes of soymeal. Int J Morphol. 25:139–144.
   Google Scholar
• Oyeyemi MO, Oke AO, Ajala OO, Idehen CO. 2002. Differences in testicular parameters and morphological characteristics of spermatozoa as related to age of West African Dwarf bucks. Trop J Anim Sci. 5:99–107.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips NJ, McGowan MR, Johnston SD, Mayer DG. 2004. Relationship between thirty post-thaw spermatozoal characteristics and the field fertility of 11 high-use Australian dairy AI sires. Anim Reprod Sci. 81:47–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinart E, Camps R, Briz MD, Bonet S, Egozcue J. 1998. Unilateral spontaneous abdominal cryptorchidism: structural and ultrastructural study of sperm morphology. Anim Reprod Sci. 49:247–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijsselaere T, Van Soom A, Hoflack G, Maes D, de Kruif A. 2004. Automated sperm morphometry and morphology analysis of canine semen by the Hamilton-Thorne analyser. Theriogenology. 62:1292–1306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saravia F, Nunez-Martinez I, Moran JM, Soler C, Muriel A, Rodriguez-Martinez H, Pena FJ. 2007. Differences in boar sperm head shape and dimensions recorded by computer-assisted sperm morphometry are not related to chromatin integrity. Theriogenology. 68:196–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smital J. 2009. Effects influencing boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci. 110:335–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smital J, De Sousa LL, Mohsen A. 2004. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Anim Reprod Sci. 80:121–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. 1994. Statistical methods. 8th ed. Calcutta: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Sone M. 1990. Investigation on the control of bacteria in boar semen. Jpn J Anim Reprod. 36:23–29.
   Google Scholar
• Tejerina F, Buranaamnuay K, Saravia F, Wallgren M, Rodriguez-Martinez H. 2008. Assessment of motility of ejaculated, liquid-stored boar spermatozoa using computerized instruments. Theriogenology. 69:1129–1138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiseman J, Varley MA, Chadwick JP. 1998. Progress in pig science. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wysokinska A, Kondracki S, Banaszewska D. 2009. Morphometrical characteristics of spermatozoa in Polish Landrace boars with regard to the number of spermatozoa in an ejaculate. Reprod Biol. 9:271–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar