Studies on Dilutors vis-a-vis Freezability of Patanwadi Ram Semen: II. Effect on Spermatozoal Enzyme Leakage

Authors

  • S P NEMA Dept. of Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry GAU, Sardarkrushinagar - 385 506, Gujarat
  • A J DHAMI
  • F S KAVANI

Keywords:

Dilutors, Freezability, Dehydrogenase, Phosphatase,, Transaminase, Ram semen

Abstract

The effects of dilutors, rams, stages of freezing process and their interactions were studied in 30
ejaculates (6/ram) in a 3x5x3 factorial experiment for motility and leakage of spermatozoa) enzymes during
cryopreservation of Patanwadi ram semen. The 3 diluents used with 20% egg yolk and 4% glycerol were tris
fructose citric acid egg yolk glycerol (TFCEG), phosphate buffer glucose fructose sodium citrate potassium
chloride egg yolk glycerol -a synthetic phosphate medium (Phos) and sodium citrate glucose egg yolk
glycerol (SCGEG). The effects of dilutors, rams, stages of freezing (initial, prefreeze and post-thawed) and
·their two-way interactions were highly significant on sperm motility and leakage ·of LOH, GOT and AKP
enzymes. Minimum LOH leakage (383.2 ± 7.28 IU/billion sperms) and maximum post-thaw.motility (36.67
± 1.13%) was observed in TFCEG. diluent followed by Phos (31.00 ± 1.43%) and SCGEG (19.83 ± 0.85%)
diluents, although GOT and AKP leakage was minimum in Phos and maximum in TFCEG diluent. Oilutor x
ram x stage interaction was also significant for all 3 enzymes. Rams having better sperm motility at dilution
stage could express equally good post-thaw motility in Phos diluent. ·Further, the observations indicated that
though motility was significantly higher in TFCEG diluent, the remaining attributes, except LOH leakage,
were more congenial for freezing process in Phos diluent.

Published

2023-02-02

How to Cite

NEMA, S.P., DHAMI, A.J., & KAVANI, F.S. (2023). Studies on Dilutors vis-a-vis Freezability of Patanwadi Ram Semen: II. Effect on Spermatozoal Enzyme Leakage. The Indian Journal of Animal Reproduction, 29(2), 187–191. Retrieved from https://acspublisher.com/journals/index.php/ijar/article/view/5511