Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T03:18:10.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The hydrogen-ion concentration of the semen of the bull

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Anderson
J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Experimental Station, Naivasha, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The mean pH of 221 ejaculates of clinically normal bulls was 6·73 ± 0·020. Significant differences were noted between different bulls.

2. There were highly significant negative correlations between the pH. of the ejaculates and the concentration of spermatozoa, the volume of ejaculate and the motility of the spermatozoa.

3. The more acid the semen was on collection, the better was the motility retained on storage. Semen which retained its motility well became increasingly acid during storage. A change in the pH in the alkaline direction during storage had an adverse effect on motility. The more acid the pH on collection the less likely was a decrease in acidity during storage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 1942 , pp. 298 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1939). Vet. J. 95, 457.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1940). Vet. J. 96, 18.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1941). Vet. Bee. 53, 197.Google Scholar
Bernstein, A. & Slovohotov, I. (1933). Trud. Orenburg. Vet. Inst. no. 1. Moscow and Samara.Google Scholar
Davis, H. P. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 240.Google Scholar
Davis, H. P. & Williams, N. K. (1939). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 232.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. & Walton, A. (1939). Proc. 7th Int. Congr. Genetics, Edinburgh, p. 109.Google Scholar
Gunn, R. M. C. (1936). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 94.Google Scholar
Hatziolos, B. (1937). Z. Zücht. B, 38, 199.Google Scholar
Lanz, T. Von (1929). Arch. ges. Physiol. 222, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKbnzie, F. F. & Berliner, V. (1937). Res: Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 265.Google Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. (1934). Artificial Insemination of Livestock. Moscow.Google Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. (1936). Probl. Zivotn. no. 3, p. 100.Google Scholar
Schneerson, S. S. (1936). Sborn. Trud. zooteh. Kaf. s. h. Skol. Kirov. 1, 142.Google Scholar
Sergin, N. P. (1935). Probl. Zivotn. no. 12, p. 100.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1938). Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Collegiate Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1936). Notes on the Artificial Insemination of Sheep, Cattle and Horses. London: Holborn Surgical Instrument Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1932). Aust. Vet. J. 8, 199.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1934–5). Ann. Rep. Dep. Agric. N.Z. p. 26.Google Scholar
Webster, W. M. (1938). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Zagami, V. (1938). R.C. Accad. Lincei, (VI), 27, 488.Google Scholar