BOAR' BREED AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INFLUENCING SEMEN

CHARACTERISTICS OF BOARS USED IN ARTIFIICIAL INSEMINATION

B. W. KENNEDYIand J. N. WILKINS,
tDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University
of Guelph, Guetph, Ontario
NlG2WI; and 2Ontario Swine AI Association, Woodst:ock, Ontario N4S7y7.
Received 5 June 1984, accepted I0 August 1984.

KeNNeoy, B. W. eNo WnrrNs, J. N. 1984. Boar, breed and environmental

factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used i.n artificial insemination.
Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 833-843.

A total of 12 717 elaailates from 74 Yorkshire, 25 Hampshire, 35 Duroc, 27 Lan-

drace and 5 Lacombe boars were measured for semen volume, sperm concentration,
percentage live sperm, motility and potential doses of sernen. The data were col-
lected by the Ontario Swine AI Association between 1971 and 1980. Boar repeat-
ability and the effects of breed of boar, technician, year, rnonth, day of the week,
interval between collections and age of boar were examined. Boar repeatabilities
were 0.21 for volume, 0.32 for concentration, 0.28 for perr:entage live sperm, 0.21
for motility score and 0.30 for potential doses. Breed ofboar effects were significant
for all semen measures. Potential doses were highest for Yorkshire (14.7), followed
by Landrace (13.7), Duroc (12.9), Hampshire (12.5) and Lacombe (7.7). Difter-
ences between technicians were significant for all measures except potential doses.
Technicians who collected greater semen volume obtained ejaculates with lower
sperm concentration, which resulted in no real difference between technicians for
potential doses. Similarly, day of collection was significantl for all measures except
potential doses. Volume of semen collected was lowest on Saturdays. but Saturdav
collections had the highest sperm concentration, percentage: live spirm and motility
scores. Seasonal effects were significant on all traits. Semen volume was lowest in
April and increased steadily to peak in November whereafter volume declined. The
seasonal pattern for concentration was less definite. Percentage live sperm and mo-
tility were highest in January and declined steadily to a low point in August. po-
tential doses were highest from November to January e3 .2:,-14.2) and lowest from
April to June (10.7-10.9). Year effects were also signific:ant and potential doses
incteased over time. As interval between collections increrased, there was as sig-
nificant increase in semen volume, concentration and potential doses, but intervil
had little effect on percentage live sperm and motility. Age of boar effects were
significant for all traits. Maximum volume, concentration aLnd potential doses were
from24- to 29-mo old boars and lowest volume, concentration and potential doses
were from young boars of less than 9 mo. However, percentage live sperm and
motility were highest for young boars and declined with in,creasing age.

Key words: Boar, semen, repeatability, breed, age, collection interval

[Effet des facteurs attribuables au sujet, d la race et i I'environnement sur les ca-
racteristiques du sperme de porcs utilis6s pour I'insemination artificielle.l
Titre abr6g6: Facteurs influant sur le sperme des porcs.
Nous avons mesur6 le volume, la teneur en spermatozoides, le pourcentage de sper-
matozoides vivants, la motilit6 et le nombre de doses potentielles de sperme de
12711 €jaculats provenantde T4porcs yorkshire, de 25 Hlampshire, de 35 duroc,
de 27 Landrace et de 5 Lacombe. Ces donn6es ont 6t6 recueillies de 1971 e 1980
par l'Ontario Swine AI Association. Nous avons 6tudi6 la €p6tabilit6 des r6sultats

Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 833-843 (Dec. 1984)

833
834 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

i la race, au technicien, i 1'ann6e, au

pour chaque sujet ainsi que les effets dus
mois, au jour de la semaine, au temps 6coul6 entre chaque collecte et d I'Age du
sujet. La rep6tabilit6 pour chaque sujet s'6tablissait i 0,21 pour le volume, i 0,32
pour la concentration, d 0,28 pour le pourcentage de spermatozoides vivants, h 0,21
pour la motilit6 et d 0,30 pour le nombre de doses potentielles. Les effets de la race
6taient significatifs pour toutes les mesures du sperme. Le nombre de doses poten-
tielles 6tait plus 61ev6 chez les Yorkshire (14,7), suivis par les Landrace (13.7), les
Duroc (12,9), les Hampshire (12,5) et les Lacombe (7,7)'Les diff6rences entre les
techniciens 6taient significatives pour toutes les mesures sauf le nombre de doses
potentielles. Les techniciens qui recueillaient un volume plus 6lev6 de sperme ob-
tenaient des 6jaculats moins concentr6s, ce qui revenait ir un nombre de doses po-
tentielles comparable. Les diff6rences attribuables au jour de la collecte 6taient elles
aussi significatives pour toutes les mesures sauf le nombre de doses potentielles.
Les collectes effectu6es le samedi donnaient le volume de sperme le plus bas. Par
contre, la concentration, le pourcentage de spermatozoides vivants et la motilit6
dtaient plus 6lev6s ce jour li. Les effets dus i la saison 6taient significatifs pour
toutes les mesures. Le volume de sperme 6tait le plus bas en avril et augmentait
regulibrement par la suite pour atteindre un maximum en novembre. Il diminuait
par la suite d nouveau. La variation de la concentration avec la saison ne suivait
pas une courbe aussi claire. Par ailleurs, le pourcentage de spermatozoides vivants
et la motilit6 atteignaient un maximum en janvier pour diminuer par la suite jusqu'en
ao0t. Le nombre de doses potentielles 6tait le plus 6levd de novembre i janvier
(13,2-14,z)etleplus bas d'avril djuin (10,7-10,9). Les effets attribuables dl'ann6e
6taient aussi significatifs et le nombre de doses potentielles augmentait avec Ie
temps. L'augmentation du temps 6cou16 entre chaque collecte s'accompagnait d'une
augmentation significative du volume de sperme, de la concentration et du nombre
de doses potentielles mais influait peu sur le pourcentage de spermatozoides vivants
et la motilitd. Les effets dus i I'dge du sujet 6taient significatifs pour tous les ca-
ractbres mesur6s. Le volume, la concentration et le nombre de doses potentielles
atteignaient un maximum chez les sujets Ag6s de 24 ir 29 mois. Les minimum s'ob-
servaient chez les sujets ages de moins de 9 mois. Par contre, le pourcentage de
spermatozoides vivants et la motilit6 partaient d'une valeur maximale chez les jeunes
pour diminuer par la suite avec I'Age.
Mots cl6s: Porc, sperme, r6p6tabilit6, race, Age, temps 6coul6 entre les collectes

Use of artificial insemination (AI) in swine
is increasing in Canada. In Ontario, more
than 26 000 doses of semen are distributed
annually through the Ontario Swine AI As-
sociation. In Europe, more than one million
AI inseminations are made yearly, and in
some European countries, the proportion of
total matings made through AI is approach-
ing 50Vo (Willems 1978).
Knowledge of factors influencing both
the quantity of quality of semen is impor-
tant to AI organizations. Most of our infor-
mation on boar semen production comes
from relatively small studies conducted un-
der experimental conditions, which have
been reviewed by Du Mensil du Buisson et
al. (1978). There is little information avail-
able for data collected under commercial AI
conditions. Between l9'7I and 1980, the
Ontario Swine AI Association collected
l2 717 ejaculates from 166 boars and eval-
uated these for semen volume, sperm con-
centration, percentage live sperm, motility
and potential number of doses. This study
examines boar repeatability and the effects
of breed of boar, technician, year, month,
day of the week of collection, interval be-
tween collections and age of boar on these
measures of semen quantity and quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between October 1971 and December 1980,
 KENNEDY AND WILKINS
72777 ejaalates were collected and evaluated
on 74 Yorkshire, 25 Hampshire, 35 Dvoc,27
Landrace and 5 Lacombe boars housed at the
Ontario Swine AI Association in Woodstock,
Ontario. Collections were by one of four tech-
nicians and were performed Monday through
Saturday. Interval between recorded collections
ranged from I day to more than 4 wk. Mean in-
terval was 6.8 days and the mode was 6 days.
Age of boar at the time of collection ranged from
5.8moto7.3yr.
Semen was collected by gloved hand in the
boar's pen using a portable steel dummy. The
sperm-rich fraction of each ejaculate was eval-
uated for semen volume (mL), sperm concentra-
tion (106), motility score, percentage live sperm
and potential number of doses per ejaculate.
Sperm concentration was measured with a spec-
trophotometer. A semen sample was diluted with
saline and percentage live sperm was measured
by microscopic examination as the
live progressively motile sperm. Also a motility
score was subjectively assigned. Motility score
was initially recorded on a scale of ascending
motility from I to 5 with pluses or minuses as-
signed within number. This was converted to a
completely numerical scale of 1 to 15 to take
advantage of the */- information. Potential
number of doses was calculated as (volume x
concentration x %olive sperm)/300 000. At any
time only one technician performed the labora-
tory analyses, and the same laboratory techni-
cian was used for 6 of the 9 years of the study.
Means and standard deviations for the semen
traits are given in Table l.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of semen
tralts
Volume (mL)
Concentration (I 06/mL)
Live sperm (7c)
Motility score
Potential doses
The data were analyzed by maximum likeli-
hood (Schaeffer 1976) according to the follow-
ing main effects model:
)ilrmop : P * 4 * bij + tk + d,
4p f 9iju-om
where y,.,*,*"* is a semen measure, p is the pop-
ulation mean, r, is the fixed effect of the ith breed
of boar, b,, is the random effect of the jth boar
FACTORS INFLUENCING BOAR SEMEN 835
-
within the lth breed - (0, Ioo'z), t" is the fixed
effect of the kth technician who collected the
ejaculate, d, is the fixed effect of the lth day of
the week, p- is the fixed effect of the nth year,
n" is the fixed effect of the nth month, lo is the
fixed effect of the Oth inverval between collec-
tions, ao is the fixed effect of the pth age of boar
at collection class and e'*,.no* is the random error
- (0,1a"2). Maximum likelihood was used to
avoid bias from culling of boars on the basis of
their semen production performance.
There were five technician classes, one for
each of the technicians and a fifth class for a few
(393) ejaculates for which the technician col-
lecting the boar was unknown. There were 14
interval classes; a base interval representing the
first collection of a boar, one class each for in-
tervals of 1,2, ..., 12 days and a final class of
> 13 days. There were nine age-at-collection
classes; <8, 9-11, 12-17, L8-23, 2+-29, 30-
percentage 35, 3Hi ,48-59 and >60 mo.
Boar repeatability of semen measures was es-
timated from maximum likelihood boar and er-
ror variances as r : or2l(oot * o.'). Repeata-
bilities were estimated both within breed and
pooled across breed. For the within-breed re-
peatabilities, separate analyses were performed
for each breed and the breed term was deleted
from the model. The pooled repeatabilities were
estimated from a single analysis using all the data
with the breed of boar term included in the
model.
In addition to the preceding main effects anal-
ysis by maximum likelihood, all two-way inter-
actions were examined individually (ignoring all
other interactions). For these analyses, repeat-
ability from the main effects model was assumed
known and mixed model procedures were used
Mean SD (Henderson and Henderson 1979).
94.1 21 a
836 29s RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
59. 8 6.6
11.6 1.9 Repeatabilities
15.5 7.4 Repeatabilities of semen traits by breed are
in Table 2. Results were relatively consis-
tent across breeds. Repeatabilities for La-
combe were erratic because of the small
sample size (five.boars). Across breed, re-
+ p^ + m, -t i. I peatabilities ranged from 0.21 for volume
and motility to 0.32 for concentration. Re-
peatability of potential doses was 0.30.
The repeatabilities indicate that evalua-
tion of a single ejaculate does not provide
836 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Table 2. Repeatabilities of semen traits by breed
No. of
Breed boars Volume Concentration
Yorkshire 0.2i + 0.03 0.31 i 0.04
Hampshire 25 0.19 r 0.05 0.25 + 0.06
Duroc -J) 0.14 + 0.03 0.35 i 0.06
Landrace 2',7 i
0.28 0.08 0.28 r 0.06
Lacombe 5 T 0.55+0.16
Pooled 166 0.21 i 0.02 0.32 + 0.03
lDid not converge.
a very good measure of a boar's semen pro-
ducing abilities, and repeated measures on
a number of ejaculates are required for ac-
curate evaluation of a boar's performance'
The mean of from 9 to l5 ejaculates would,
depending upon semen trait, have a corre-
lation of approximately 0.8 with the true se-
men producing ability of the boar.
Breed of Boar
Breed of boar effects were significant for
all traits (Table 3). Hampshires had the
largest semen volume, Duroc had the high-
est sperm concentration and percentage live
sperm, and Yorkshire had the highest mo-
tility scores (Table 4). Lacombe boars were
lowest for all semen measures. Potential
doses was highest for Yorkshire (14.7) , fol-
lowed by Landrace (13.7), Duroc (12.9),
Hampshire (12.5) and Lacombe (7.7).
Conlon and Kennedy (1978) reported that
Landrace boars produced about twice the
total semen volume as Hampshire and
Duroc boars. Sperm concentration was
slightly less for the Landrace. Johnson et
al. (1981) reported significantly greater
sperm concentration in (Dutch) Landrace
than in Large White (760 vs. 514 106/mL),
but found no significant differences be-
tween Landrace and Large White for semen
volume and motility score. In this study,
Landrace and Yorkshire boars did not differ
significantly for any semen trait. York-
shires were, however, better than La-
combes for all measures. In contrast,
Swierstra and Rahnefeld (1967) found no
significant differences between Yorkshire
and Lacombe for a variety of semen param-
eters.
Live sperm Motility Potential
(E") score doses
0.28 + 0.04 0.21+0.03 0.31+0.04
0.22t0.06 0.19+0.05 0.21 +0.o4
0.15 + 0.04 0.12 + 0.03 i
0.24 0.05
0.28 10.06 0.25 + 0.05 0.24 + 0.06
0.02 t 0.03 0.04 a 0.04 0.28 + 0.14
i
0.28 0.02 0.21 ).0.O2 t
0.30 0.02
Results of breed comparisons can differ
from study to study as a result of differ-
ences in sampling of boars or because of
interactions between breed of boar and
other factors which are not consistent or
controlled between studies. For example,
Swierstra and Rahnefeld (1967) compared
young Yorkshire and Lacombe boars of
about 9 mo of age. In this study, average
age at collection was 24.3 mo. Further ex-
amination of the data in this study (to be
discussed in more detail later) shows that
differences between Yorkshire and La-
combe at less than 9 mo were small and not
significant, but at later ages the two breeds
differed in favor of the Yorkshire.
Technician
Differences between technicians collecting
the ejaculate were significant for all meas-
ures except potential doses (Table 3). Tech-
nicians who collected greater semen vol-
umes obtained ejaculates with lower sperm
concentrations which resulted in no differ-
ence in potential doses (Table 5). Also, the
technician who collected the lowest vol-
umes (technician C) had the highest per-
centage live sperm and motility scores of
ejaculates collected.
Day of Collection
Day of collection was also significant for
all measures except potential doses (Table
3). Volume of semen collected was least on
Saturdays, but Saturday collections had the
highest sperm concentration, percentage
live sperm and motility scores (Table 6). As
a result, potential doses were highest on
Saturday, but not significantly so.
 KENNEDY AND WILKINS INFLUENCING BOAR SEMEN 837
-FACTORS

Month
Month of year or seasonal effects were sis-
*****
****x
@$NnO*-N
rif€-€--+€ nificant for all semen traits (Table 3). Vo'i-
3X oid;6+oiS> ume collected was lowest in April and in-
foO\O€OnN o€€o
-*s:
creased steadily to peak in November,
whereafter semen volume declined (Table
7). The seasonal pattern for sperm concen-
tration was less well defined, but concen-
******
***x*
oo€€oo6N
tration was highest in December and lowest
€*N@O-Or
ONNN€ONO
in June. Percentage live sperm and motility
€c $ 6i cj d -j oi r;6i
N*Oo N
score were highest in January and declined
d
steadily to a low point in August. potential
doses were highest from November to Jan-
uary (13.2-14.2) and lowest from April to
***::**
* * * + lx *
June (10.7-10.9).
€O\OnXn\OO
aN NN6r-:orr Changing seasons bring changes both in
o ov o+\rir; Vxj;r;
€€Sr^',+rN temperature and length of the natural
-*rci-i N
,i photoperiod. In these data, taken under
commercial conditions, the two effects are
o
o somewhat confounded. Wettemann et al.
(1976, 1979) reported that arrificially in-
x{-***+*
**x**** duced heat stress had no effect on semen
\ON\O-6h66
O-oO€66d volume, but significantly reduced percent-
F} OOn€Nn6-
tfNOOON6N
r-no+€-$ age motile sperm. In this study percentage
NdNON€d
(.) hn- live sperm and motility score were lowest
E in August but semen volume was relatively
high. Wettemann et al. (1979) also showed
that short-term exposure (6 wk) to induced
heat stress did not reduce sperm concentra-
*******
**xx*** tion butprolonged exposure (l I wk) did. In
o ctt:?nqq-:g
NnNhoro€
€n$\o6o@h this study, sperm concentration was aver-
€O-\OOOnf
f; n€t€oon age in July and August. Greenberg and Ma-
srN*
6
hone (1981) found no effect of artificially
F induced photoperiod on semen quantity or
quality of ejaculates of young boars (<g
mo). In these data, semen volume increased
VSh*Oo@N
€ almost linearly from June to December.
d coincident with decreasing day length.

Year
Year effects were significant for all traits
(Table 3). There was a discernible trend for
increased potential doses with time (Table
; 8). Trends for components of potential
*
doses were less consistent, except that there
U-d was some indication that motility score and
E F r j
-=
percentage live sperm were declining with
o iEsEse*E time.
838 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

Table 4. Estimates of the effects of breed of boar on semen trarts

Volume Concentration Live sperm Motility Potential

Breed (mL) 1106/mL) (Vo) score ooses

Yorkshire 90.8 + 1.9 806 :t 19 61.36 + 0.37 I 1 .96 + 0.09 14.69 .!O.44
Hampshire 96.r + 3 .2 6'7 4 L32 t
59.68 0.61 11.50+0.15 12.50+0.74
Duroc 79.1 t:2.7 8t4 + 2l 61 .49 t0.52 11.89t0.13 12.85i0.63
Landrace 93 .5 + 3.2 I 5\ ).32 60.97 1 0.60 11.85r0.15 13.721:0.74
Lacombe 70.81:6.8 587 t 68 58.59 + 1.30 11.40+0.32 7.73+1.59

Table 5. Estimates of the effects of technician on semen trarts

Volume Concentration Live sperm Motility Potential

Technician (mL) (106/mL) (Vc) score doses

Unknown 86. 8 r 2.5 703 L23 59.99 !0.47 t 1.56 + 0.12 11.91 + 0.54
A 90.4+2.2 711+21 60.28 10.43 I 1.60 0.1 t 1 12.53 a 0.50
B 81 .7 +2.0 722+ 20 59.95 :t 0.38 11.67+-0.10 12.34=0.46
'78.9 ):2.5 '769 !22 62.02+0.46 12.14+0.12 12.52L0.54
D 86.3 + 2.1 728 !20 59.86 t 0.40 11.63+0.10 12.19+0.4'7

Table6.EstimatesoftheeffectSofdayofcollectiononSementrarts

Volume Concentration Live sPerm Motility Potential

Day (mL) (106/mL) (7a) score doses

Monday 86.6 :! 2. 1 12'7):20 60.11 + 0.40 t.68 + 0.10 12.36!0.4'7

Tuesday 85.0i2.1 '728L20 60 .25 + o.39 1.64 + 0.10 12.lo + o.4'l
Wednesday 86. I + 2.1 723 + 20 60.20 L 0.39 I .65 + 0.10 t2.14 + 0.4'7
Thursday 87.8+2.1 712+ 20 60.66 :! 0.39 1.79 r 0.10 t2.29 + 0.47
Friday 8'7.'7 +2.1 716+20 60.33 l:0.40 11.71 + 0.10 12.41 + 0 .41

Saturday 83.2+ 2.2 753+2r 60.9'7 !0.4r 11 .85 + 0.10 t2.50 !0.49

TableT.Estimatesoftheeffectsofmonthofcollectiononsementfalts

Volume Concentration Live sperm Motility Potential

Month (mL) (106/mL) (vo) score doses

January 89.'7 !2.3 '726t22 62.43 + 0.43 12.31!0.11 13.30!0.51

February 83.l !2.2 740!21 6l .41 + 0.43 12.11+0.11 12.34!0.50
March 78.8!2.2 '748!21 6l .31 + 0.42 12.02+0.11 11.86t0.50
April 't4.2!2.2 73'7 +21 6l .51 + O.42 12.09+0.11 10.93+0.50
May 78.0+2.2 716!21 60.62 + o.4L 11.80+0.11 10.87!0.49
June 80.O!2.2 '704!21 59.59 0.41 i 11.53+0.11 10.'72+0.49
July 85.6+ 2.2 '122!21 59.69 i0.41 1 I .46 + 0.l0 12.00 + 0.49
August 88.8 + 2.2 73O+21 59 .28 + 0.41 11.41+0.10 12.55!0.49
September 92.3 !2.r 713!20 59.78 10.41 11.49+0.10 12.91+O.48
October 92.1!2.1 714+20 59.78 + 0.40 0.10 12.71!0.48
11.48 +
November 96.t + 2.1 70'l !20 59.63 t 0.40 10 13. 18 t 0.47
1 1 .41 + 0.

December 01 R+t I 760!20 60.00 ! 0.39 11.50i0.10 14.22!0.4'7

Interval tration increased as interval increased

Effects of interval between collections were (Table 9). Although interval effects on per-
significant for all semen traits except mo- centage live sperm were significant
tility score (Table 3). Volume and concen- (P<0.05), they were small and seemed to
 KENNEDY AND WILKINS FACTORS INFLUENCING BOAR SEMEN 839
-
Table 8. Estimates of the effects of year on semen traits

Volume Concentration Live sperm Motility Potential

Year (mL) (106/mL) (vo) score doses
197 r 102.0 + 4.7 502 + 4l 62.82 + 0.88 12.46+0.23 9.27+0.99
r9'72 77 .O + 3.1 630 + 30 61.00 + 0.58 I1.94 + 0.15 9.52+ 0.70
t9'13 65.2+2.9 783 + 27 63.41 + 0.55 12.05*0. l4 t0.67*0.65
1974 70.0+2.'7 823+25 61.15 + 0.15 11.90 + 0.13 11.79 t 0.60
| 2.37 + 0.12
1975 '78.1 + 2.5 792 + 23 62.28+0.47 t 2.63 + 0.55
t9'76 t}t.2 + 2.2 638 + 2l 62.33 + 0.42 12.69+0.t| t3.6t+0.49
t97'7 94.0+2.O 690 + 19 61.91 + 0.38 12.20 + 0.10 13.16 + 0.45
1978 85.8 + 2.0 6'75!19 58.28 + 0.37 ll.0l+0.10 11.50+0.44
1979 99.6+ 2.0 829 + 19 57.28 +0.38 10.76 + 0. 10 16.33 + 0.45
1980 87 .5 + 2.1 903 + 20 53.76 + 0.40 9.81+0.10 14.50+0.48

be associated with the base collection rather
than with any trend due to interval. poten-
tial doses from a l-day interval were 5.3
compared with 16.1 for a l2-day interval.
The mode interval in this study was 6 days,
and its estimated potential doses were 12.8
or 2.1 doses/day. Reducing the interval to
3 days would produce an estimated 2.9
doses/day, a 31Vo increase per boar.
Increasing frequency of collection low-
ers quantity of sperm recovered per ejacu-
late but increases the total number of sperm

Table 9. Estimates of the effects of interval between collections on semen traits

Interval Volume Concentration Live soerm Motility Potential

(d) (mL) (106/mL) (vo) score doses
Base 83.8 + 3.0 774 + 26 61.38 + 0.57 11.92 + 0.15 13.20 + 0.64
6'7 .9 + 2.5
'72.8+2.2
482+23 60.40+0.4'1 |t.70+0.t2 5.26+0.55
2 55'7+ 2l 60.70 + o.43 11.65+0.43 7.29+0.50
J
I
78.0 + 2.1 613 + 2I 60.65 + 0.41 11.71+0.10 8.'73+0.49
83.2+2.1 649+ 20 60.42+ 0.40 11.67 + 0.10 10.12 + 0.48
5 87 -5 + 2.1 704+20 60.24+0.40 11.62+0.10 11.73+0.48
6 88.4+2.1 739 + 20 60.'72+0.39 11.77 +0.10 12.77 +0.47
1 90.o + 2.1 764 + 20 60.41 + 0.40 11.73 +0.10 13.39+0.48
8 90.'7 +2.2 + 21
'786 60.25 + 0.42 11 .'72 + 0.ll 14.07 + O.49
9 90.5 !2.3 8O4+22 60.09 + 0.44 ll .62 + 0.11 14.42 + O.52
10 91.0 + 2.5 809 +23 60. l8 + 0.46 11.72+0.12 14.'18+0.54
11 92.4 + 2.9 835 + 26 59.86 + 0.54 1 1.83 + 0.15 15.30 + 0.61
t2 96.1 +2.8 825 + 25 60.24+0.53 11.66 + 0.14 16.08 + 0.60
>t3 91.8+2.2 828+21 60.33 + 0.42 tt.74+0.11 15.06+0.49

Table 10. Estimates of the effects of age of boar at collection of semen trarts

Age volume Concentration Live sperm Motility Potential

(mo) (mL) (106iml-) (vo) score doses
<8 73.2+2.2 656+20 6l .77 + 0.42 12.13 + 0.ll 9.32+0.48
9-l I 81.5+1.9 732+ I8 61.91 + 0.36 12. l0 + 0.09 11.95 + 0.43
12-17 88.3+1.9 716+ 18 6t.2'.7 + 0.35 11.96 + 0.09 13.52 + 0.43
t8-23 89.8 + 1.9 '769 + 19 60.85 + 0.37 11.88 + 0.09 13.92 + O.44
24-29 90.9 + 2.0 778 + 20 60.48 + 0.39 1 1.73 + 0. 10 1 3.98+ 0.46
JU-Jf 89.3 + 2.2 I tz=ll 59.84+0.42 11.52 + 0.11 13.52 + 0.50
36-47 + 2.4
87 .4 702+22 59.45 lO.45 11.46 + 0.11 I1.98 + 0.53
48-59 87 .3+ 2.8 676+26 59.00 + 0.52 I 1.35 + 0.14 11.49+0.61
>60 86.6 + 3.3 676+ 3l 59.20+0.63 11.36+0.16 I 1.01 r 0.73
840 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

+ * if f
t x i t t I f I-n
b3 hp s; 5e t+ hB bqr
Rs
d
h€
+ i
!s
r; r as r
h= *
s{
; i ei
* x e+ :E q=E
vi s ci n a'o !9 q
o' s a
-
?; : I ; ; ; ; ; il 6i ei
"i - K^;l'i ": sl..].;i\ uh i'i\ aii\ $N NN od €N
sR';jN ti^.1 5ii $h P od

*+******
5q q. r= b=.* kE be lq hc qr -e lg
BS gE lg$nnS
SB FB 13 FE iq iA {q :i q"oi'iqi -,i SS
oi -i oi d; oi i:" ::6i d: - N or nh
€c
a =8
; X i X ; X j I ;
"i ; "i
ai ai s 6i ci oi oi ai 6i d

*tT}TTT{{
o o
l=q s$ ss $;
-€ iq 3e iq qfl E< iE Kq lf se $E sf EE ?
cK +K sK $K FK sR sK$R EK KK si FK $n xn 3K RR RRs
aN
ov

B J
3

L, ** lo := i= hi
6*N€6\O€€iAC

s5 tE Ui
ixin is 3=
EE
nn*t s=
$ss5 ss
bsinbAg
*5 P+d$ E
;l
bo O*
xx EE c$ $s 9E *$ F: 6$
o

L- -^ L- L.., "rr L" io L= t", l= 5.e rl l= :: a: it ll I

o
o
tra

fiF ;r *n $l
d
-n $r gF $s qn Er nFpF gF $r HF$6qR E

RS $=RUn: RS R$ $=egs: sE sFs;.8 ?$$il!: I

:sRRXXXIIIIIISSSSS!

E*E
: € E sE F'E F F

€ s E u. g y-;-;-;=;=i=E=[=E=*=i=i=y
xE xE xE xE rEti:g;
"E'E:EE.qE:qE:IE.:E;E,"E rE
E
 KENNEDY AND WILKINS FACTORS INFLUENCING BOAR SEMEN 84I
-

obtained per unit time (Du Mensil du Buis-

son et al. 1978). Also, results from this
*** **
*O*$O\6€ study indicate that reducing the interval be-
o\O\Oc)iO\O
r\c; 6r; r\dr tween collections had no adverse effect on
NON\ON<ta.l
semen quality as measured by percentage
live sperm and motility score. Similarly,
Johnson et al. (1969) and Swierstra (1973)
found no difference between 1- to 3-day in-
**
** tervals on percent abnormalities and per-
O\C{mOri
h\+\Orsf
oo\
F- \O cent motility respectively, but Swierstra
oooro
cir;oidoi 6i oi and Dick (1976) reported higher percent
motility with a 3-day interval and perhaps
more importantly, a higher pregnancy rate
(3 days : 83Vo vs. 1 day :70Vo).
**
** Age of Boar
o+6O\hO\\O
\f\OnrN*6
n€ninon Age of boar at collection was significant for
NONddON
all traits (Table 3). Maximum volume, con-
centration and potential doses were from24
to 29-mo-old boars and lowest volume,
concentration and potential doses were from
young boars of 8 mo or less (Table 10).
***
sO\\O€t'-€F- However, percentage live sperm and mo-
-€NOr6€
€hO\\O€nO tility score were highest for young boars and
So$O\oF-n
srvotn+
declined steadily with increasing age.
Swierstra (1973) found that semen vol-
ume increased with age for 8-,20- and 32-
mo-old boars, but sperm concentration de-
** clined with age. Age had no effect on mo-
**
o90qnnnn- tility. Total sperm per ejaculate was highest
orNh\o\o\o
nHh\O:f,dh for 32-mo boars. Data from Conlon 1976\
rdrO\r€r
d on boars from 6 to 36 mo indicated that peak
volume was at 33 mo, peak concentration
was at 24 mo and peak quality score was at
20 mo, which is fairly consistent with this
study.
* \O\O O\o o6
ri*nOOn
nih \Oih
NdNd Interactions
All possible two-way interactions were
considered, and tests of significance are in
Table 11. Although many interactions were
significant, examination of the interaction
J effects, for the most part, indicated that in-
; teraction patterns were irregular and not in-
E>Y^ formative or were simply a matter of scal-
yo * ing effects. that is, there was no major
tr99Y
5xSx5"5 ; reranking of one factor across levels of the
E eE aE other factor. There were some interesting
q.oo oo=o tsE
x>e>&:d, * interactions, nonetheless.
842 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Breed x technician interaction was sig-
nificant for semen volume, sperm concen-
tration and potential doses. Technician C
collected relatively less and technician D
relatively more volume from Yorkshire
boars than other breeds and this was re-
flected in potential doses. Technician pref-
erence for or against a breed can apparently
influence semen production.
Breed x age interaction was significant
for all semen traits. Certain aspects of this
interaction were discussed previously. Es-
sentially, Yorkshire boars did not decline
from peak performance at 24-29 mo with
advancing age as rapidly as other breeds.
Lacombe actually had their peak for con-
centration and potential doses at (8 mo and
declined thereafter, particularly for con-
centration.
Significant technician x day of collec-
tion interactions for volume and concentra-
tion were related to Saturday collections.
Volume of semen collected on Saturday de-
clined for all but one technician (A). How-
eyer, consistent with the main effect anal-
ysis, concentration of semen for technician
A was lowest on Saturday relative to other
technicians so there was no effect on po-
tential doses. Also, the technician X month
interaction indicated that one technician
(C), who collected lowest overall for semen
volume, collected comparable semen vol-
umes to the other technicians through late
spring to mid-summer but then volumes
collected declined for the rest of the year.
The technician in question was employed
for a relatively short period (<2 yr).
CONCLUSIONS
Boar repeatability of semen traits is rela-
tively low (0.21-0.32) and reliable evalu-
ation of a boar's semen-producing ability
requires a number of repeated measures.
Breed differences in semen traits are im-
portant. Yorkshire boars were best, in terms
of production of doses of semen per eja-
culate, followed by Landrace, Duroc,
Hampshire and Lacombe. The Lacombe
data, however, were based on a sample of
only five boars. Part of the advantage of
Yorkshire boars was that their semen pro-
duction declined less with age than other
breeds.
Data used in this study are of particular
interest in that they were generated under
commercial AI and cover a much broader
range of conditions than found with exper-
imental data. In addition to academic inter-
est, the results should be of use and interest
to commercial AI organizations. A knowl-
edge ofthe effects oftechnician, day ofcol-
lection, month of year, age of boar and in-
terval between collections should assist AI
managers in planning for semen production
and making optimum use of boars in the AI
stud. Indeed, parameters generated from
this study would lend themselves well to the
linear programs for the optimization of se-
men production.
Lastly, this study has only focused on
five measures of semen quantity and qual-
ity. Of fundamental interest would be an
examination of the effects of the genetic and
environmental factors considered in this
study on actual conception rates and litter
size and the relationships of these repro-
ductive measures with the semen traits. Un-
fortunately, good field data are not yet
available in Canada for boars used in AI to
do this. However, with the introduction of
a sow productivity program through Record
of Performance (ROP), such information
should become available in the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance of Joan Reid and Susan Joyal in
editing the data is greatly appreciated. This study
was funded by the Canadian Association of An-
imal Breeders and the Ontario Ministry of Ag-
riculture and Food.
CONLON, P. D. 197 6. Comparison of crossbred
and purebred boars for reproductive perform-
ance and progeny growth and carcass merit'
M.Sc. thesis, Macdonald College of McGill
Univ., Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Que.
CONLON, P. D. and KENNEDY, B. W. 1978.
A comparison of crossbred and purebred boars
for semen and reproductive characteristics. Can'
J. Anim. Sci. 58: 63-70.
 KENNEDY AND WILKINS
-
DU MENSIL du BUISSON, F., PAQUIGNON,
M. and COUROT, M. 1978. Boar sperm pro-
duction: use in artificial insemination a re-
view. Livest. Prod. Sci. 5:293-302. -
GREENBERG, L. c. and MAHONE, J.
1981. The effect of15-h photoperiod on repro-
ductive function in boars at 2. 3,4 or 5 months
of age. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 61: 925-934.
HENDERSON, C. R., Jr. and HENDERSON,
C. R. 1979. Analysis of covariance in mixed
models with unequal subclass numbers. Com-
mun. Statist. Theor. Meth. A8:751-787.
JOHNSON, L. A., GERRITS, R. J. ANd
YOUNG, E. P. 1969. Quantitative analysis of
porcine spermatozoa and seminal plasma phos-
pholipids as affected by frequency of ejacula-
tion. J. Reprod. Fertil. 19: 95-102.
JOHNSON, L, A., AALBERS, J. G..
WILLEMS. C. M. T. and SYBESMA, W. 1981.
Use of boar spermatozoa for artificial insemi-
nation. I. Fertilizing capacity offresh and frozen
spermatozoa in sows on 36 farms. J. Anim. Sci.
52: 1130-1136.
SCHAEFFER, L. R. 1976. Maximum likeli-
hood of variance components in animal breeding
FACTORS INFLUENCING BOAR SEMEN 843
research. J. Dairy Sci. 59: 2146-2150.
SWIERSTRA, E. E. 1973. Influence of breed,
age, and ejaculation frequencies on boar semen
composition. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 43-53.
P. SWIERSTRA, E. E. and DYCK, c. W. 1976.
Influence of the boar and ejaculation frequency
on pregnancy rate and embryonic survival in
swine. J. Anim. Sci. 42:455460.
SWIERSTRA, E. E. and RAHNEFELD, c. W.
1967. Semen and testes characteristics in young
Yorkshire and Lacombe boars. J. Anim. Sci. 26:
149-157.
WETTEMANN, R. P., WELLS, M. E.,
OMTVEDT,I. T., POPE, C. E. and TURMAN,
E. J. 1976.Influence of elevated ambient tem-
perature on reproductive performance of boars.
J. Anim. Sci. 42: 664-669.
WETTEMANN, R. P., WELLS, M. E. and
JOHNSON, R. K. 1979. Reproductive charac-
teristics of boars during and after exposure to
increased ambient temperature. J. Anim. Sci.
49: l50l-1505.
WILLEMS, C. M. 1978. Development of arti-
ficial insemination in pigs in E.A.A.P. coun-
tries. Livest. Prod. Sci. 5:285-291.
This article has been cited by:

1. D.W. Lugar, T. Gellert, J. Proctor, P. Wilcock, B. Richert, K.R. Stewart. 2018. Effects of
supplementation with betaine and superdosed phytase on semen characteristics of boars during and
after mild heat stress. The Professional Animal Scientist 34:4, 326-338. [Crossref]
2. Josué Chinchilla-Vargas, Karl Kerns, Max F. Rothschild. 2018. Lunar and climatic effects on boar
ejaculate traits. Animal Reproduction Science 193, 117-125. [Crossref]
3. Drew W. Lugar, Jarret A. Proctor, Timothy J. Safranski, Matthew C. Lucy, Kara R. Stewart. 2018.
In utero heat stress causes reduced testicular area at puberty, reduced total sperm production, and
increased sperm abnormalities in boars. Animal Reproduction Science 192, 126-135. [Crossref]
4. C. Wang, J. L. Li, H. K. Wei, Y. F. Zhou, J. J. Tan, H. Q. Sun, S. W. Jiang, J. Peng. 2017. Linear
growth model analysis of factors affecting boar semen characteristics in Southern China1. Journal
of Animal Science 95:12, 5339-5346. [Crossref]
5. Damian Knecht, Anna Jankowska-Mąkosa, Kamil Duziński. 2017. The effect of age, interval
collection and season on selected semen parameters and prediction of AI boars productivity.
Livestock Science 201, 13-21. [Crossref]
6. D. Knecht, A. Jankowska-Mąkosa, K. Duziński. 2017. The dependence of the growth rate and meat
content of young boars on semen parameters and conception rate. animal 11:05, 802-810. [Crossref]
7. Vendula Kamanová, Zdeněk Hadaš, Pavel Nevrkla. 2017. Production and Quality of Semen in Boars
in Insemination Centre. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 65:4,
1189. [Crossref]
8. L. Fraser, J. Strzeżek, K. Filipowicz, M. Mogielnicka-Brzozowska, L. Zasiadczyk. 2016. Age and
seasonal-dependent variations in the biochemical composition of boar semen. Theriogenology 86:3,
806-816. [Crossref]
9. MLWJ Broekhuijse, AH Gaustad, A Bolarin Guillén, EF Knol. 2015. Efficient Boar Semen
Production and Genetic Contribution: The Impact of Low-Dose Artificial Insemination on
Fertility. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 50, 103-109. [Crossref]
10. M. Theau-Clément, G. Bolet, A. Sanchez, G. Saleil, J.M. Brun. 2015. Some factors that influence
semen characteristics in rabbits. Animal Reproduction Science 157, 33-38. [Crossref]
11. Hugo Petrocelli, Carlos Batista, Jaime Gosálvez. 2015. Seasonal variation in sperm characteristics
of boars in southern Uruguay. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 44:1, 1-7. [Crossref]
12. Martin Schulze, Sabine Buder, Karin Rüdiger, Martin Beyerbach, Dagmar Waberski. 2014.
Influences on semen traits used for selection of young AI boars. Animal Reproduction Science
148:3-4, 164-170. [Crossref]
13. Damian Knecht, Sebastian Środoń, Karolina Szulc, Kamil Duziński. 2013. The effect of
photoperiod on selected parameters of boar semen. Livestock Science 157:1, 364-371. [Crossref]
14. D. Martín-Hidalgo, F.J. Barón, A. Robina, M.J. Bragado, A. Hurtado de Llera, L.J. García-
Marín, M.C. Gil. 2013. Inter- and intra-breed comparative study of sperm motility and viability in
Iberian and Duroc boar semen during long-term storage in MR-A and XCell extenders. Animal
Reproduction Science 139:1-4, 109-114. [Crossref]
15. B. A. Freking, P. H. Purdy, S. F. Spiller, C. S. Welsh, H. D. Blackburn. 2012. Boar sperm quality
in lines of pigs selected for either ovulation rate or uterine capacity1,2. Journal of Animal Science
90:8, 2515-2523. [Crossref]
16. M.L.W.J. Broekhuijse, E. Šoštarić, H. Feitsma, B.M. Gadella. 2012. The value of microscopic
semen motility assessment at collection for a commercial artificial insemination center,
a retrospective study on factors explaining variation in pig fertility. Theriogenology 77:7,
1466-1479.e3. [Crossref]
17. Péter Sarlós, István Egerszegi, Szabolcs Nagy, Hedvig Fébel, József Rátky. 2011. Reproductive
function of Hungarian Mangalica boars: Effect of seasons. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica 59:2,
257-267. [Crossref]
18. Yu Hung HUANG, Ling Ling LO, Shyh Hwa LIU, Tien Shuh YANG. 2010. Age-related changes
in semen quality characteristics and expectations of reproductive longevity in Duroc boars. Animal
Science Journal 81:4, 432-437. [Crossref]
19. I. Audet, N. Bérubé, J. L. Bailey, J.-P. Laforest, J. J. Matte. 2009. Effects of dietary vitamin
supplementation and semen collection frequency on reproductive performance and semen quality
in boars1. Journal of Animal Science 87:6, 1960-1970. [Crossref]
20. J. Smital. 2009. Effects influencing boar semen. Animal Reproduction Science 110:3-4, 335-346.
[Crossref]
21. William L. Flowers. 2008. Genetic and phenotypic variation in reproductive traits of AI boars.
Theriogenology 70:8, 1297-1303. [Crossref]
22. CHRISTOPHER E. KUSTER, GARY C. ALTHOUSE. Reproductive Physiology and
Endocrinology of Boars 717-721. [Crossref]
23. Marcella Spinaci, Sara Volpe, Chiara Bernardini, Marco De Ambrogi, Carlo Tamanini, Eraldo
Seren, Giovanna Galeati. 2005. Immunolocalization of heat shock protein 70 (Hsp 70) in boar
spermatozoa and its role during fertilization. Molecular Reproduction and Development 72:4,
534-541. [Crossref]
24. T. Haugan, O. Reksen, Y.T. Gröhn, A.H. Gaustad, P.O. Hofmo. 2005. A retrospective study on
effects of storage time of liquid boar semen on reproductive performance in Norwegian swine.
Theriogenology 64:4, 891-901. [Crossref]
25. M. Montserrat Rivera, Armando Quintero-Moreno, Xavier Barrera, M. Jesús Palomo, Teresa
Rigau, Joan E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2005. Natural Mediterranean photoperiod does not affect the main
parameters of boar-semen quality analysis. Theriogenology 64:4, 934-946. [Crossref]
26. Fabiane Mendonça Ferreira, Ivo Wentz, Isabel Regina Scheid, Simone Bonini Afonso,
Antônio Lourenço Guidoni, Fernando Pandolfo Bortolozzo. 2005. Comportamento de monta e
características seminais de suínos jovens landrace e large white. Ciência Rural 35:1, 131-137.
[Crossref]
27. Kefei Chen, Christoph Knorr, Gerhard Moser, Kesinee Gatphayak, Bertram Brenig. 2004.
Molecular characterization of the porcine testis-specificphosphoglycerate kinase 2 (PGK2) gene and
its association with male fertility. Mammalian Genome 15:12, 996-1006. [Crossref]
28. A. Suriyasomboon, N. Lundeheim, A. Kunavongkrit, S. Einarsson. 2004. Effect of temperature
and humidity on sperm production in Duroc boars under different housing systems in Thailand.
Livestock Production Science 89:1, 19-31. [Crossref]
29. Roland Kozdrowski, Andrzej Dubiel. 2004. The effect of season on the properties of wild boar (Sus
scrofa L.) semen. Animal Reproduction Science 80:3-4, 281-289. [Crossref]
30. J Smital, L.L De Sousa, A Mohsen. 2004. Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis
in AI boar sperm output. Animal Reproduction Science 80:1-2, 121-130. [Crossref]
31. S.Y. Huang, M.Y. Chen, E.C. Lin, H.L. Tsou, Y.H. Kuo, C.C. Ju, W.C. Lee. 2002. Effects of
single nucleotide polymorphisms in the 5′-flanking region of heat shock protein 70.2 gene on semen
quality in boars. Animal Reproduction Science 70:1-2, 99-109. [Crossref]
32. A. Ciereszko, J.S. Ottobre, J. Glogowski. 2000. Effects of season and breed on sperm acrosin activity
and semen quality of boars. Animal Reproduction Science 64:1-2, 89-96. [Crossref]
33. S.Y. Huang, Y.H. Kuo, Y.P. Lee, H.L. Tsou, E.C. Lin, C.C. Ju, W.C. Lee. 2000. Association of
heat shock protein 70 with semen quality in boars. Animal Reproduction Science 63:3-4, 231-240.
[Crossref]
34. H Andersson, M Wallgren, L Rydhmer, K Lundström, K Andersson, M Forsberg. 1998.
Photoperiodic effects on pubertal maturation of spermatogenesis, pituitary responsiveness to
exogenous GnRH, and expression of boar taint in crossbred boars. Animal Reproduction Science
54:2, 121-137. [Crossref]
35. Martha Lopes Schuch de Castro, João Carlos Deschamps, Werner Meinke, Frank Siewedt, Ricardo
Alberto Cardelino. 1996. Influencia do período de coleta sobre o volume, motilidade e doses de
sêmen em suínos. Ciência Rural 26:3, 457-462. [Crossref]
36. L. Malmgren, H. Rodriguez-Martinez, S. Einarsson. 1996. Attainment of Spermatogenesis in
Swedish Cross-bred Boars. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 43:1-10, 169-179. [Crossref]
37. R.W. Gerfen, B.R. White, M.A. Cotta, M.B. Wheeler. 1994. Comparison of the semen
characteristics of Fengjing, Meishan and Yorkshire boars. Theriogenology 41:2, 461-469. [Crossref]
38. B. Kemp, G. C. M. Barker, L. A. den Hartog, M. W. A. Verstegen. 1991. The effect of semen
collection frequency and food intake on semen production in breeding boars. Animal Production
52:02, 355-360. [Crossref]