Quality of Labrador- Retriever dog semen on short-term preservation in different extenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to find the comparative efficacy of three extenders to preserve semen of Labrador-Retriever (LR) dogs at 5o C for a short term. The semen samples of LR dogs were collected by digital manipulation method and extended at the rate of 1:4 in Tris-Egg Yolk- Citric Acid-Glucose (TEYCAG), Tris-Egg Yolk- Citric Acid-Fructose (TEYCAF) and Egg Yolk-Citrate-Glycine-Glucose (EYCGG) extenders by split sample technique. Semen was evaluated at 0, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hours of preservation. Mean motile, live and HOST-reacted sperm and acrosomal, head, mid piece and tail abnormalities of spermatozoa varied significantly (PP less than 0.01) between extenders and between preservation periods. The interactions between extender and preservation period were also significant (P less than 0.01) except for HOST-reacted and head abnormalities of sperm. The highest mean motile, live and HOST-reacted sperm were recorded in TEYCAG extender which did not differ significantly from that of TEYCAF extender. Mean per cent sperm acrosomal and tail abnormalities were significantly (PP less than 0.05) lower, and the incidences of mean sperm head and mid piece abnormalities were also lower in TEYCAG, but not significantly from that in TEYCAF irrespective of hour of preservation. Per cent motile, live and HOST-reacted sperm were significantly (PP less than 0.05) lower and sperm acrosomal, head, mid piece and tail abnormalities were significantly (PP less than 0.05) higher in EYCGG as compared to that in TEYCAG and TEYCAF irrespective of hour of preservation. It was concluded that the semen of LR dog sustained good quality during preservation up to 5 days at 5oC suitable for successful artificial insemination and would be preserved better in TEYCAG and TEYCAF extenders than in EYCGG extender, since more than 50 per cent sperm motility and live sperm were maintained up to 120 hours of preservation in the former two extenders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".