Starvation and Its Effect on Semen Quality

Starvation and Its Effect on Semen Quality

MALATHION AND CHICK PERFORMANCE Jones, 1955. Control of maggots in turkey dung with malathion. J. Econ. Entomol. 48: 342-343. Sherman, M., and E. Ross...

407KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views

MALATHION AND CHICK PERFORMANCE Jones, 1955. Control of maggots in turkey dung with malathion. J. Econ. Entomol. 48: 342-343. Sherman, M., and E. Ross, 1961. Acute and subacute toxicity of insecticides to chicks. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 3 : 521-533. Spiller, D., 1961. A digest of available information on the insecticide malathion; R. L. Metcalf,

1723

Advances in Pest Control Research, Vol. IV, Interscience Publishers, Inc., N.Y., p. 249335. Srivastava, B. K., H. C. Sarena and J. C. Sharma, 1960. Influence of dietary intake of certain insecticides on the haemoglobin and erythrocyte content, of chick blood. Nature, 186: 172-173.

Starvation and Its Effect on Semen Quality

(Received for publication May 17, 1969)

T

HE practice of force molting hens has been studied over a long period of time and under various molting programs. Most of these programs employed some form of starvation. A review of the literature does not indicate that force molting procedures have been tried with the male. The object of these trials was to determine the effect of starvation on semen production, sperm quality, and feather molt. METHODS AND PROCEDURE

In the first of two trials, three groups of White Plymouth Rock males, 3, 2, and 1 year of age, were maintained in single bird cages (61 X 61 X 61 cm.) in a house with natural daylight. A randomized complete block design, with families (usually full sibs) as blocks, was used with the control and force molt treatments assigned at random to each age group within a family. A total of 10 families was used. At the beginning of the experiment, the males were fed an all-mash breeder ration and water ad libitum. Every second day, from April 12 to June 9, 1966, males were Published with approval of the Director of the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station as Technical Contribution No. 792.

ejaculated by the method of Burrows and Quinn (1937). Individual records were obtained on semen volume, number of sperm (sperm concentration), number of sperm per ejaculate, motility and vigor, as described by Boone and Huston (1963). The data collected the first 8 days were recorded as pre-treatment values. On day 8 (April 20), the feed was removed late in the afternoon and water was removed early the next morning. On day 12 each bird was fed 55 grams of feed and given water ad libitum for ]/2 day as per Hamm (1967). The birds received no more feed or water until day 26, when it was supplied ad libitum. The control males were given feed and water ad libitum throughout the experiment. To determine the concentration of spermatozoa and the number of spermatozoa per ejaculate, semen samples were counted with the aid of a Coulter Counter.® Artificial ejaculation and insemination for fertility and hatchability data were performed on the day feed was removed and at varying periods (2-8 days) thereafter. Where possible, three hens were inseminated with the semen of each male. One hundred million spermatozoa were used in each insemination. Semen samples were collected, counted, examined microscopically, and in-

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

M. A. BOONE AND B. L. HUGHES Poultry Science Department, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29631

1724

M. A. BOONE AND B. L. HUGHES

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the statistical tests for trial 1 are shown in Table 1. Significant effects are denoted for the 5% and 1% levels. Prior to starvation, no differences existed in semen volume among age groups or treatments. At 6 days of starvation, semen volume was significantly decreased (P < .05). By the 18th day of the treatment period, semen volume had reached 0 in 6 of the 30 treated birds and water was restored to the starvation group, with feed being added the following morning. Semen volume equalled the control 15 days after feed and water were returned. A significant reduction (P < .05) in motility between treatment groups was noted 12 days after feed and water were withheld. Motility did not return to the control level until the males had received water and feed for 15 days. There was a significant decrease (P < .01) in vigor of the spermatozoa 8 days after feed was withheld. This difference continued to be significant until the treated males had been back on feed for 17 days. There was a significant difference (P < .01) due to age in spermatozoa concentration during the first portion and the last portion of this trial. The 3-year-old males had a much lower spermatozoa count. At 16 days of starvation, a significant decrease (P < .05) on spermatozoa concentration was observed with a highly significant (P < .01) effect at 18 days. Spermatozoa concentration returned to control level after being placed on feed and water for 25 days. The effect of age on the number of spermatozoa per ejaculate was significant (P < .05) in only two cases prior to starvation. However, there was a significant effect for age at 26 days after feed was returned to the starved group. No explanation is appar-

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

seminated within a 30-minute period. Eggs were saved for 2 weeks following a single insemination. All eggs candled as infertile were broken out and examined macroscopically. A second trial was conducted in essentially the same manner as the first. The same house, cages, and experimental design were used. The house was darkened and a 13-hour light day maintained. In many instances, the same males were used the second year, with the 2-year-old males of the first trial being the 3-year-old males in the second trial and the 1-year-old males of trial 1 being the 2-year-old males of trial 2. This trial was initiated on April 21, 1967. Data collected from April 21 to April 25 were recorded as pre-treatment values. For the starvation group, the feed was removed on April 25 and the water on the morning of April 26. To simulate the hen conditions of Hamm (1967), males were given 55 grams feed and £ day water on April 29 and no further feed or water until 14 days after initial starvation when water was made available. Feed was furnished ad libitum that afternoon and continued for the duration of the experiment. Additional data gathered in this trial included water consumption recorded for individual birds the first 24 hours after the starvation period. Individual feed consumption was recorded post-starvation and until termination of the trial. A sample of body temperatures was taken post-starvation after the birds had access to water for ^ hour. Maximum and minimum ambient temperatures were recorded daily throughout the trial to insure that heat or cold stress was not superimposed on the starvation stress. Data were subjected to the analysis of variance as outlined by Steel and Torrie (1960).

1725

STARVATION AND SEMEN QUALITY TABLE 1.—Effect

Vol.

of withholding feed and water on cocks 3, 2, and 1 year of age. Summary of statistical analysis, trial 1

Mot.

iCone.

Vigor

Sperm/ejac

% fert.

% hatch

Day A* T* I * A

I

A

T

I

A

T

** **

* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** * *

** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** *

** * ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** #* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** #* ** * * *

*

I

A

T

I

A T I

A

T

I

*

* * *

* ** ** * ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** * ** * * * ** ** ** ** * ** ** * ** *

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

**

*

**

**

**

**

•i> A = Age; T = Treatment; 1=Interaction (AXT); F = F e e d removed, water removed the next morning; W = Water returned, feed returned the next morning. * =P<.05. ** = P < . 0 1 .

ent for this effect. After 10 days of starvation, a highly significant decrease in the number of spermatozoa/ejaculate was observed for treatment groups. This difference in the number of sperm per ejaculate was significant (P < .01) until the birds had been returned to feed and water for a period of 23 days. Percent fertility of eggs was significantly reduced when hens were inseminated by semen collected 6 days after the start of the starvation period. This difference was highly significant at 16 days. The fertilizing ability of spermatozoa returned to nor-

mal 19 days after feed and water were supplied. There was no age effect for either fertility or hatchability. Hatchability of fertile eggs was significantly reduced among hens inseminated with spermatozoa collected from males 16 days after feed and water were removed and highly significant after 22 days. Semen collected 17 days after feed and water were returned resulted in hatchability equal to the control. There was no age X treatment interaction except for a few isolated cases in motility, vigor, and spermatozoa concentration. The results of statistical tests for trial 2

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

0 2 4 6 8F 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 W 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64

T

M. A. BOONE AND B. L. HUGHES

1726

TABLE 2.—Eject of withholding feed and water on cocks, 3, 2, and 1 year of age. Summary of statistical analysis, trial 2 Vigor

Mot.

Vol.

Cone.

Sperm/ejac

% fert.

% hatch.

Day A>f T * I * A 0 2 4F 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 W 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46

T

I

A

T

I

A

T

I

A T I

A T I

A T I

** *

* *

* #*

** ** ** ** ** ** * **

** * ** *#

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *# ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** *

* * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** *

**

*

*

•fri A = Age; T=Treatment; 1 = Interaction (AXT); F = F e e d removed, water removed the next morning; W = Water returned, feed returned the next morning. * =P<.05. ** = P < . 0 1 .

are shown in Table 2. These results are similar to those in trial 1. The decrease in semen volume was highly significant after 4 days of starvation, Fig. 1. After 14 days of starvation, semen volume on the treated birds had dropped to .60 ml. as compared to 1.46 ml. for the control group. Since one

0

it

8 16 19 2^f Duration of T r i a l

32 kO 2 (Days)

k8

FIG, 1. Effect of starvation on semen volume. Average, 30 $'s/group.

male died from starvation, as evidenced by severe dehydration, the survivors were returned to water and feed. After 8 days on feed and water, there was no significant difference (P < .OS) in volume of semen between the two groups. Motility showed a significant decrease after 2 and 4 days of starvation with a highly significant difference at 14 days. Motility did not return to level of the controls until the males had received water and feed for 16 days. Although there was a significant difference (P < .05) in spermatozoa vigor in the early portion of this trial, 10 days of starvation was required to cause a consistently large difference (highly significant) between the two treatments. Upon return of feed and water to birds, 18 days of feed and water were required before the treated group returned to the level of the controls.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

** ** ** ** ** #* ** **

**

STARVATION AND SEMEN QUALITY

TABLE 3.—Water consumed in first 24 hours after 14 days of starvation by ages, trial 2 Ages

Controls N o Feed or Water Difference

3 years

2 years

1 year

228 ml. 565 ml. 337 ml.

248 ml. 629 ml. 381ml.

229 ml. 548 ml. 319 ml.

235 ml. 580 ml. 345 m l .

trial. There was no significant age effect on spermatozoa concentration, number of sperm per ejaculate, fertility, or hatchability. Age effect was significant in only two cases for semen volume, one case in motility and two cases in spermatozoa vigor. In every case, the 1-year-old males had the lowest value. Although there appeared to be essentially no age effect on semen volume in these trials, it may be partially due to the method of initial selection of males. For this experiment, all males used were selected for a large volume of semen production. No other selection was made except for their pedigree. There was no sign of a feather molt in trial 1. Near the end of trial 2, there was a slight molt in both the control birds and the treated birds, with molting being slightly heavier in the treated birds. Water consumption of starved males was increased 150% for the 24 hours immediately after restoration (Table 3). Feed consumption increased from both the short term (5 day) and long term (27 day) period following starvation (Tables 4, 5). Body temperature of the starved group TABLE 4.-—Average individual feed consumption in grams for 5 day period following starvation, trial 2 Ages Treatment



0









8 16 2k 32 kO Duration of Trial 2 (Days)

Av. 3 years 2 years



1 year

h8

FIG. 2. Effect of starvation on spermatozoa concentration. Average, 30 $ 's/treatment.

Controls Starved Difference

572 613 41

645 667 22

581 749 168

599 676 77

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

There was a highly significant increase in spermatozoa concentration for the starved males within 4 days after water and feed were removed. This was probably due to dehydration of the bird, which resulted in a reduced volume of seminal plasma. Sixteen days of starvation caused a highly significant decrease in sperm concentration. Access to feed and water for 22 days was required for the spermatozoa concentration of the treated group to return to the level of the controls, Fig. 2. The number of spermatozoa per ejaculate was significantly decreased after 10 days of starvation. This attribute returned to normal after 22 days access to feed and water. Fertility and hatchability were not as severely reduced in trial 2 as in trial 1. Fertility was highly significantly different from the control in only one instance. Hatchability was affected in only two isolated cases. Hatchability was low throughout the trial among eggs from hens inseminated by sperm from both the control and treated group. This was largely due to incubator troubles. There was no age X treatment interaction for any variable throughout the second

1727

1728

M. A. BOONE AND B. L. HUGHES

TABLE 5.—Average individual feed consumption for 27 day period following starvation, trial 2 Ages Treatment 3 years 2 years Control Starved Difference

3,087 3,587 500

3,659 3,900 241

TABLE 6.—Average body temperature (°C.) of male chickens after 14 days of starvation. Water had been returned to starved group one-half hour at the time temperature was taken, trial 2

Av

Ages

1 year Treatment 3,073 3,954 881

3,278 3,814 536

NOTE: 30 birds/treatment, 10 birds/group.

Controls No feed or water Difference

3 years

2 years

1 year

40.7 39.7 1.0

40.9 39.4 1.5

41.0 39.4 1.6

vigor occurred after 10 and 8 days of starvation, and a return to normal occurred after 18 days of feed and water. A significant decrease in spermatozoa concentration was seen after 16 days of starvation. No significant difference existed 26 and 22 days after the males were returned to feed and water. The number of sperm per ejaculate was significantly reduced 10 days after the initiation of starvation and continued until birds were back SUMMARY on feed and water for 24 and 26 days. In trial 1, fertility was reduced after 6 In two trials, roosters, 3, 2, and 1 year of age, were starved 18 days, trial 1, and days' starvation. This difference lasted 14 days, trial 2, after the pre-treatment pe- until the males were back on feed and riod. After 4 to 6 days of starvation, semen water for 18 days. In trial 2, in only one volume was significantly decreased. It re- case was there a significant difference in turned to normal 16 and 8 days (in trials fertility and this was after 14 days of star1 and 2) after the starved groups had been vation. Hatchability was reduced after 18 days of starvation and normalcy returned returned to feed and water. Motility was significantly decreased after 18 days of feed and water. after 12 and 14 days and returned to norThe effect of age and age X treatment mal 16 days after feed and water were re- interaction was noted in only a few isolated turned. A highly significant decrease in cases. TABLE 7.—Effects

of starvation on body weight (in kilograms) of males, trials 1 and 2 Starved Group 1 yr. 2 yrs.

Av.

3.86 2.68

3.36 2.18

3.68 2.59

3.95

3.91

3.45

3.77

3.86 3.77

(Trial 2) 4.32 3.27

3.86 3.23

3.18 2.45

3.82 3.00

3.77

3.82

3.77

3.23

3.64

3 yrs.

Control 2 yrs. 1 yr.

Av.

3 yrs.

Prior to starvation End of starvation 65 days post starvation

3.91 4.00

3.82 3.95

3.50 3.64

3.73 3.86

{Trial 1) 3.82 2.86

3.95

3.95

3.68

3.86

Prior to starvation End of starvation 27 days post starvation

4.23 4.00

4.00 3.95

3.32 3.32

3.95

3.95

3.36

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

averaged 1.4°C. (2.5°F.) lower than the controls (Table 6). The males lost 20-30% in body weight in trials 2 and 1 respectively (Table 7). It appears that starvation has the same effect on spermatozoa motility, vigor, concentration and number of spermatozoa per ejaculate whether the males are 1, 2, or 3 years of age, as indicated by the lack of interaction and age effect.

STARVATION AND SEMEN QUALITY

Water consumption, during the first 24 hours, after starvation was more than doubled for the starved group as compared to the controls. Feed consumption was increased 15% for the 27-day period following starvation. Body temperature of the starved group averaged 1.4°C. (2.5°F.) lower than the controls at the end of the starvation period.

ton and Elaine Holliday is also greatly appreciated. REFERENCES Boone, M. A., and T. M. Huston, 1963. Effects of high temperature on semen production and fertility in the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci. 42: 670-676. Burrows, W. H., and J. P. Quinn, 1937. The collection of spermatozoa from the domestic fowl and turkey. Poultry Sci. 16: 19-24. Hamm, D., 1967. Personal communication. Clemson University. Steel, G. D., and J. H. Torrie, 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

Productivity of Pullets Influenced by Genetic Selection for Social Dominance Ability and by Stability of Flock Membership1'2 J. V. CRAIG AND A. TOTH 3 Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502 (Received for publication May 19, 1969) INTRODUCTION

OCIAL stress is usually associated with lowered productivity in chickens. Strange hens introduced into organized flocks are initially harassed and their egg production is depressed (Sanctuary, 1932; Guhl and Allee, 1944; Guhl, 19S3; and Morgan and Bonzer, 1959). Low peck-order status also leads to a stressful intra-flock environment for the individual hen and is associated with lower productivity (see Guhl, 1953). Tindell and Craig (1959) confirmed the

S

1 Contribution No. 735, Department of Dairy and Poultry Science, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan, Kansas 66502. Supported in part by Grants G7069, G19853 and GB1720 from the National Science Foundation. 3 Fellow of the Ford Foundation Hungarian Exchange Program. Present Address: Poultry Breeding Institute, GodollS, Hungary.

presence of intra-flock associations between social rank and productivity traits for the early part of the laying year, but found later egg production to be essentially uncorrelated with rank. They also compared 6 diverse genetic strains in intermingled and separate flocks. Inter-strain competition resulted in higher performance levels for the more aggressive strains; whereas, due to their lack of competitive ability, the less aggressive strains matured later, fed less often, had a lower rate of lay and poorer livability as compared to their performance when penned separately. McBride (1958) suggested that a nonlinear association exists between peck-order status and egg mass produced per pullet. According to his hypothesis productivity drops logarithmically as peck-order position decreases below a critical level. He found that variance of egg mass for birds of low social status was significantly

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of North Dakota on May 30, 2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of Dr. W. P. Byrd, Experiment Station statistician, is greatly appreciated. The assistance of Faye Balling-

1729