Consumption of treated water from oil production in male bovine fertility of the double purpose system
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22579/20112629.566Keywords:
sperm quality, in vitro, oocytes, reproduction, semenAbstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the consumption of treated water from oil production in the seminal quality of the breeding male; To this end, 16 bulls between 4 and 5 years old were selected, distributed in two groups at Agrosavia’s La Libertad centers in Villavicencio and the Agroenergetic Sustainability Area, ASA in Acacias with availability of treated water from the oil fields, Apiay (A) and Castilla (C) respectively. The selected animals were distributed randomly to each location in 4 treatments: 1) Consumption of 100% treated production water; 2) 50% consumption of treated production water and 50% raw water consumption; 3) mixing consumption 25% treated production water and 75% raw water; and 4) 100% raw water consumption. The variables considered were: seminal quality for A and C determined by a computerized system, and in vitro fertility for A evaluated by fluorescent staining, Hoechst 33342. The data were analyzed descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means comparison tests, Tukey, in a model of measures repeated over time. The results indicated, for seminal quality, that the treatments that consumed A and C in each locality presented differences (P <0.05) for motility, 75.00 ± 4.50, 69.24 ± 4.13, motile sperm / 100 cells evaluated, in treatment two respectively and in A for morphology, 76.67 ± 2.06 normal sperm / 100 in treatment four, the sperm quality index (SQI) showed no difference (P> 0.05). The results of sperm-pellucid zone binding showed differences between treatments (P <0.05), as in in vitro fertilization, however, the behavior of these changes does not indicate an association with the consumption of this type of water. The study shows that there are no strong or negative changes that show an effect on the fertility of the bull due to the consumption of treated production water.Downloads
References
Almansa E, Velásquez JG, Rodríguez GA. Efecto del uso de aguas provenientes de la producción petrolera en actividades agrícolas y pecuarias. Corpoica Cienc Tecnol Agropecu. 2018;19(2):403-420
Anchieta MC, Vale Filho VR, Colosimo E, Sampaio IBM, Andrade VJ. Descarte e congelabilidade do sêmen de touros de raças zebuínas e taurinas em central de inseminação artificial no Brasil. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. 2005;57(2):196-204
Barszcz K, Wiesetek D, Wasowick M, Kupczynska M. Bull semen collection and analysis for artificial insemination. J Agric Sci. 2012;4(3):1-10
Berg HF, Kommisrud E, Bai G, Gaustad ER, Klinkenberg G, Standerholen FB, et al. Comparison of sperm adenosine triphosphate content, motility and fertility of immobilized and conventionally cryopreserved Norwegian Red bull semen. Theriogenology. 2018:121:181-187
Burnett CR, Pratt SL, Long NM, Sell GS, Schrick FN. Assessment of semen quality and fertility in young growing beef bulls exposed to ergot alkaloids. Theriogenology 2018;118:219-224
Braundmeier AG, Demers J, Shanks R, Saacke R, Miller D. Examination of the binding ability of bovine spermatozoa to the zona pellucida as an indicador of fertility. J Androl. 2002;23(5):645-651
Blondin P, Beaulieu M, Fournier V, Morin M, Crawford L, Madan P, King WA. Analysis of bovine sexed sperm for IVF from sorting to the embryo. Theriogenology. 2009;71: 30-38
Brito L. A Multilaboratory study on the variability of bovine semen analysis. Theriogenology. 2016;85(2):254-266
Cabrera P, Pantoja C. Viabilidad espermática e integridade del acrosoma em sêmen congelado de toros nacionales. Rev Investig Vet Perú. 2012;23(2):192-200
Cardozo JA, Velásquez JG, Rodríguez G, Prieto E, Tarazona G, Espitia A. 2002. Evaluación reproductiva del macho bovino en condiciones tropicales. Plan de modernización tecnológica de la ganadería colombiana. Manual técnico.
Chenoweth PJ, McPherson FJ. Bull breeding soundness, semen evaluation and cattle productivity. Anim Reprod Sci. 2016;169:32-36
Contri A, Valorz C, Faustini M, Wegher L, Carluccio A. Effect of sperm preparation on CASA motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Theriogenology. 2010;74: 424-435
Coy P, Romar R, Payton R, McCann L, Saxton A, Edwards L. Maintenance of meiotic arrest in bovine oocytes using the S-enantiomer of roscovitine: effects on maturation, fertilization and subsequent embryo development in vitro. Reproduction. 2005;129(1):19-26
Fair S, Lonergan P. Review: Understanding the causes of variation in reproductive wastage among bulls. Animal. 2018;12(s1):s53-s62. Doi: 10.1017/S1751731118000964
Felipe-Pérez YE, Juárez ML, Hernández EO, Valencia JJ. Viability of fresh and frozen bull sperm compared by two staining techniques. Acta Vet Bras. 2008;2(4):123-130
Ferraz MAMM, Morató R, Yeste M, Arcarons N, Pena AI, Tamargo C, et al. 2014. Evaluation of sperm subpopulation structure in relation to in vitro sperm-oocyte interaction of frozen-thawed semen from Holstein bulls. Theriogenology. 2014;81:1067-1072
Flowers WL. Sperm characteristics that limit success of fertilization. J Anim Sci. 2013;9(7):3022-3029
Hidaka T, Fukumoto Y, Yamamoto S, Ogata Y, Horiuchi T. Variations in bovine embryo production between individual donors for OPU-IVF are closely related to glutathione concentrations in oocytes during in vitro maturation. Theriogenology. 2018;113:176-182
Kastelic JP, Thundathil JC. Breeding soundness evaluation and semen analysis for predicting bull fertility. Reprod Domest Anim. 2008;43(2):368-373
Khalil WA, El-Harairy MA, Zeidan AE, Hassan MA, Mohey-Elsaeed O. Evaluation of bull spermatozoa during and after cryopreservation: Structural and ultrastructural insights. International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine. 2018;6:s49-s56
Oliveira LZ, Paes de Arruda R, Cesar de Andrade AF, Carvalho Celeghini EC, Dos Santos RM, Beletti ME, et al. Assessment of field fertility and several in vitro sperm characteristics following the use of different Angus sires in a timed-AI program with suckled Nelore cows. Livest Sci. 2012;146:38-46
Orantes MA, Vilaboa J, Ortega E, Córdova V. Comportamiento de los comercializadores de ganado bovino en la región Centro del estado de Chiapas. Quehacer Científico en Chiapas. 2010;1(9):51-56
Páez EM, Corredor ES. Evaluación de la aptitud reproductiva del toro. Ciencia y Agricultura. 2014;11(2):49-59
Parkinson TJ. Evaluation of fertility and infertility in natural service bulls. Vet J. 2004;168(3):215-229. Doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2003.10.017
Petherick JC. A review of some factors affecting the expression of libido in beef cattle, and individual bull and herd fertility. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004;90:185-205
Prinosilova P, Kopecká V, Hlavicová J, Kunetková M. Modified hypoosmotic swelling test for the assessment of boar and bull sperm sensitivity to cryopreservation. Acta Vet Brno. 2014;(83):313-319
Quintero MA, Mayorga JM, Cardona MW. El análisis seminal como herramienta para predecir el potencial reproductivo en toros. Journal of veterinary andrology (JVA). 2017;2(1):30-37
Restrepo BG, Úsuga SA, Rojano BA. Técnicas para el análisis de la fertilidad potencia del semen equino. CES Med Vet Zootec. 2013;8(1):69-81
Rosseto A. O uso de sondas fluorescentes na avaliação morfofuncional de espermatozóides bovinos. Rev Ciêne Agrár Belêm. 2005;43 junio/julio Suplemento
Ruiz SB, Ruiz HH, Mendoza NP, Oliva MA, Gutiérrez MF, Rojas MRI, et al. Caracterización reproductiva de toros Bos taurus y Bos indicus y sus cruzas en un sistema de monta natural y sin reposo sexual en el trópico mexicano. Revista científica UDO Agrícola. 2010;10(1):94-102
Thundathil JC, Dance AL, Kastelic JP. Fertility management of bulls to improve beef cattle productivity. Theriogenology. 2016;86(1):397-405
Vejarano OA, Sanabria RD, Trujillo GA. Diagnóstico de la capacidad reproductiva de toros en ganaderías de tres municipios del alto Magdalena. Rev MVZ Córdoba 2005;10(2):648-662
Velásquez JG, Canovas S, Barajas DP, Marcos J, Jiménes-Movilla M, Gutierrez R, et al. Role of Sialic Acid in Bovine Sperm–Zona Pellucida Binding. Mol Reprod Dev. 2007;74:617-628
Velho ALC, Menezes E, Dinh T, Kaya A, Topper E, Moura AA, Memili E. Metabolomic markers of fertility in bull seminal plasma. Plos One. 2018;13(4):e0195279. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pone.0195279
Viana AGA, Martins AMA, Pontes AH, Fontes W, Castro MS, Ricart CAO, et al. Proteomic landscape of seminal plasma associated with dairy bull fertility. Nature. 2018(8):16323. Doi:10.1038/s41598-018-34152-w
Yániz JL, Palacín I, Vicente-Fiel S, Gosalvez J, López-Fernández C, Santolaria P. Evaluation of comercial kit base don acridine orange/propidium iodide to assess the plasma membrane integrity of ram sperm. Span J Agric Res. 2013;11(2):362-365
Yániz JL, Palacín I, Caycho KS, Soler C, Silvestre MA, Santolaria P. Determining the relationship between bull sperm kinematic subpopulations and fluorescence groups using an integrated sperm quality analysis technique. Reprod Fert Develop. 2018;(30):919-923
Youngquist RS, Threlfall WR. 2007. Current therapy in Large Animal Theriogenology. Second edition. Philadelphia, United States: Elsevier.
