MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008856777 · doi:10.1071/rdv23n1ab233

233 EFFECTS OF A LONG-ACTING TRANQUILIZER ON SPERM MOTILITY OF NORTH AMERICAN BISON BULLS

2010· article· en· W2008856777 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Gratton, Behzad M. Toosi, M. Anzar, Robert McCorkell, Carl Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemen collectionElectroejaculationBison bisonSemenAnimal scienceSemen qualityBiologyTranquilizerSpermSperm motilityMedicineArtificial inseminationAndrologyEcologyPregnancyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handling induces stress in North American bison that can lead to injuries for both handlers and animals. Moreover, this induced stress may result in variations in collection and quality of the semen. The objective of this study was to investigate if a long-acting neuroleptic (LAN) can lower the stress on bison bulls, allowing for safer handling and improvement in the quantity and quality of the collected semen. For this study, 6 mature bison bulls (3 Bison bison bison and 3 Bison bison athabascae) housed at the Native Hoofstock Centre, near Saskatoon, SK, Canada, were used. For each trial, bison bulls were randomly separated into 2 groups: LAN-treated (n = 3) and nontreated control (n = 3). In the treatment group, each bull was injected with 100 mg of Piportil L4® (piperodine phenothiazine, a LAN with antipsychotic properties and weak sedative activity that has a prolonged duration of action ˜2 wk). After injection, both groups were given a 5-day rest period before semen collection. All bison were collected by electroejaculation, twice a week for 2 wk with a minimum 48 h of rest between collections (total of 3 trials; 4 collections per trial). Between each trial, a rest period of 1 wk was given to the bulls. To evaluate the stress level of the animal, the bull’s heart and respiration rates were recorded before and after each collection. Electroejaculated semen was kept at 37°C and transported to the laboratory for further semen analysis (˜2 h). Semen was analysed using computer assisted sperm analyzer. Several parameters including volume, concentration, total motility, progressive motility, velocity curvilinear (VCL), velocity average path (VAP), and velocity straight line (VSL) were recorded. The data were analysed using two-way ANOVA (SAS 9.2; SAS Institute, inc., Cary, NC, USA). Data are presented as mean ± SD and P < 0.05 level of significance. Results for the stress level revealed that the heart rate (beats/min) before semen collection (control: 65.8 ± 14.6, treated: 65.3 ± 9.4) and heart rate after semen collection (control: 67. 9 ± 14.4, treated: 62.9 ± 9.1) showed no differences between control and treatment. Both respiration rates (breaths/min) before and after collection did not show difference due to treatment (control: 44.1 ± 17.5 and 36.6 ± 15.1, and treated: 41.6 ± 22.0 and 35.3 ± 14.3, respectively). Results of the semen analysis showed no significant effect of treatment on the volume of ejaculate between control (5.3 ± 2.0 mL) and treated (4.6 ± 2.4 mL). Both total and progressive motility of the semen showed no difference between control (70.5 ± 18.1% and 64.6 ± 19.4%) and treated (64.6 ± 22.7% and 58.6 ± 23.2%), respectively. No significant effects were seen in any of the sperm velocity parameters (µm s–1): VCL, 123.5 ± 31.5 in control and 121.7 ± 28.9 in treated; VAP, 75.4 ± 18.7 in control and 71.8 ± 17.2 in treated; and VSL, 62.3 ± 16.9 in control, and 59.3 ± 15.3 in treated groups. It can be concluded that 100 mg of Piportil has no discernible effect on stress levels, sperm count, or motility in bison bulls. Funded by Agriculture Development Fund (#2008044) and Canadian Animal Genetic Resources program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207