Bacteriospermia among smallholder artificial insemination boars in the Philippines and potential associated factors

Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence of bacteriospermia, the bacterial load, and the potential factors associated with bacterial contamination in boar semen collected by local smallholder artificial insemination operators.

Methods: Fifteen individual raw semen samples were collected from locally available artificial insemination boars owned by different smallholder boar operators within the 5th district of Leyte, Philippines and were subjected to standard bacteriological culture and identification, including a survey of potentially associated factors. Prevalence and bacterial count were determined accordingly, while boar characteristics and collection practices were clustered following agglomerative hierarchical clustering technique.

Results: One hundred percent contamination with a bacterial count of (2.01±0.38)×10³ CFU/mL was observed. At least 73.33% of the samples were positive for Bacillus spp., while other identified isolates included Enterobacter spp., Staphylococcus spp., E. coli, Pseudomonas spp., Citrobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp.

Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of bacteriospermia, the bacterial count is low. Nevertheless, on-farm practices on boar health and management, semen collection, and sanitation as well as the enhancement of basic protocols to control contamination should be conscientiously considered in smallholder artificial insemination operation.

Keywords

Bacteriospermia / Local artificial insemination boars / Boar sperm / Artificial insemination / Semen quality / Smallholder pigs

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to PJB Yare for the boar semen samples and HA Luza for assistance in the laboratory. Dr. LM Balala provided some guidance on bacterial culture and identification. DG Gelaga and H Fujimoto assisted with photo documentation.

Funding

This study forms part of a research project funded by the DOST-Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD) through the Visayas State University (Project Code: 20201050-1.93).

Authors’ contributions

Santiago T. Peña, Jr. contributed to project administration, funding acquisition, study conceptualization, original manuscript writing, review, and editing, and data consolidation and analysis. Ma. Delia A. Pagente, Bianca Therese P. Ymas, and Mark Edd B. Janier equitably contributed to study conceptualization, methodology, sampling and laboratory works, data management and analysis, and review of the manuscript.

References

[1] Gerrits RJ, Lunney JK, Johnson LA, Pursel VG, Kraeling RR, Rohrer GA, et al. Perspectives for artificial insemination and genomics to improve global swine populations. Theriogenology 2005; 63(2):283-299.

[2] Knox RV. Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology 2016; 85:83-93.

[3] Singh M, Mollier RT. Artificial insemination in pig, its status and future perspective in India: A review. Indian J Anim Sci 2020; 90(9):1207-2012.

[4] Kadirvel G, Kumaresan A, Das A, Bujarbaruah KM, Venkatasubramanian V, Ngachan SV. Artificial insemination of pigs reared under smallholder production system in northeastern India: Success rate, genetic improvement, and monetary benefit. Trop Anim Health Prod 2013; 45(2):679-686.

[5] Verma O, Kumar R, Kumar A, Chand S. Assisted reproductive techniques in farm animal-from artificial insemination to nanobiotechnology. Vet World 2012; 5(5) doi: 10.5455/vetworld.2012.301-310.

[6] Okere C, Nelson L. Novel reproductive techniques in swine production-A review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002; 15:445-452.

[7] Knox R, Levis D, Safranski T, Singleton W. An update on North American boar stud practices. Theriogenology 2008; 70:1202-1208.

[8] Johnson L, Weitze K, Fiser P, Maxwell W. Storage of boar semen. Anim Reprod Sci 2000; 62:143-172.

[9] Porth M. Benchmarking summary 2015. Benchmark. Spring Edition ed: PigChamp; 2016.

[10] Philippine Statistics Authority. Swine situation report, July-September 2021. Reference Number: 2021-477 ed2021. [Online] Available from:https://psa.gov.ph/content/swine-situation-report-july-september-2021-0 Accessed [30th July 2022]

[11] Pruneda A, Pinart E, Briz MD, Sancho S, Garcia-Gil N, Badia E, et al. Effects of a high semen-collection frequency on the quality of sperm from ejaculates and from six epididymal regions in boars. Theriogenology 2005; 63:2219-2232.

[12] Yeste M, Sancho S, Briz M, Pinart E, Bussalleu E, Bonet S. A diet supplemented with L-carnitine improves the sperm quality of Piétrain but not of Duroc and Large White boars when photoperiod and temperature increase. Theriogenology 2010; 73:577-586.

[13] Lopez Rodriguez A, Van Soom A, Arsenakis I, Maes D. Boar management and semen handling factors affect the quality of boar extended semen. Porc Health Manag 2017; 3:1-12.

[14] Wilson ME, Rozeboom KJ, Crenshaw TD. Boar nutrition for optimum sperm production. Adv Pork Product 2004; 15:295-306.

[15] Stone BA. Heat induced infertility of boars: The inter-relationship between depressed sperm output and fertility and an estimation of the critical air temperature above which sperm output is impaired. Anim Reprod Sd 1982; 4:283-299.

[16] Peña SJT, Gummow B, Parker AJ, Paris DBBP. Revisiting summer infertility in the pig: Could heat stress-induced sperm DNA damage negatively affect early embryo development? Anim Prod Sci 2017; 57:1975-1983.

[17] Sancho S, Pinart E, Briz M, Garcia-Gil N, Badia E, Bassols J, et al. Semen quality of postpubertal boars during increasing and decreasing natural photoperiods. Theriogenology 2004; 62:1271-1282.

[18] Althouse GC, Lu KG. Bacteriospermia in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 2005; 63:573-584.

[19] Rodriguez AL, Van Soom A, Arsenakis I, Maes D. Boar management and semen handling factors affect the quality of boar extended semen. Porc Health Manag 2017; 3:15.

[20] Althouse G, Kuster C, Clark S, Weisiger R. Field investigations of bacterial contaminants and their effects on extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 2000; 53:1167-1176.

[21] Martín LOM, Muñoz EC, De Cupere F, Van Driessche E, Echemendia-Blanco D, Rodríguez JMM, et al. Bacterial contamination of boar semen affects the litter size. Anim Reprod Sci 2010; 120:95-104.

[22] Sepúlveda L, Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Bonet S. Effects of different concentrations of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci 2014; 150(3-4):96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.09.001.

[23] Prieto-Martínez N, Bussalleu E, Garcia-Bonavila E, Bonet S, Yeste M. Effects of Enterobacter cloacae on boar sperm quality during liquid storage at 17 °C. Anim Reprod Sci 2014; 148:72-82.

[24] Schulze M, Ammon C, Rüdiger K, Jung M, Grobbel M. Analysis of hygienic critical control points in boar semen production. Theriogenology 2015; 83:430-437.

[25] JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.16.2) [Computer software] 2022 [Online] Available from: https://jasp-stats.org [Accessed 27th July 2022]

[26] Addinsoft. XLSTAT statistical and data analysis solution. 2022 New York, USA [Online] Available from: https://www.xlstat.com/en [Accessed 30th July 2022]

[27] Bernardes DTC, Peña SJT. Biosecurity and readiness of smallholder pig farmers against potential African Swine Fever outbreak and other pig diseases in Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines. Sci Agropecu 2020; 11: 611-620. doi: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2020.04.17.

[28] Andico WJ, Peña SJT. Biosecurity practices in high throughput Philippine backyard pig herds: A multiple correspondence analysis. Ini J Vet Sci 2019; 8:316-323.

[29] Hancock J, Hovell G. The collection of boar semen. Vet Rec 1959; 71:e665.

[30] Vilvanathan S, Kandasamy B, Jayachandran AL, Sathiyanarayanan S, Tanjore Singaravelu V, Krishnamurthy V, et al. Bacteriospermia and its impact on basic semen parameters among infertile men. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis 2016; 2016:2614692. doi: 10.1155/2016/2614692.

[31] Fraczek M, Kurpisz M. Mechanisms of the harmful effects of bacterial semen infection on ejaculated human spermatozoa: potential inflammatory markers in semen. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2015; 53:201-217.

[32] Maes D, Nauwynck H, Rijsselaere T, Mateusen B, Vyt P, de Kruif A, et al. Diseases in swine transmitted by artificial insemination: An overview. Theriogenology 2008; 70:1337-1345.

[33] Úbeda JL, Ausejo R, Dahmani Y, Falceto MV, Usan A, Malo C, et al. Adverse effects of members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on boar sperm quality. Theriogenology 2013; 80:565-570.

[34] Althouse GC, Pierdon MS, Lu KG. Thermotemporal dynamics of contaminant bacteria and antimicrobials in extended porcine semen. Theriogenology 2008; 70:1317-1323.

[35] Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Sepúlveda L, Torner E, Pinart E, Bonet S. Effects of different concentrations of enterotoxigenic and verotoxigenic E. coli on boar sperm quality. Anim Reprod Sci 2011; 127:176-182.

[36] Sepúlveda L, Bussalleu E, Yeste M, Torner E, Bonet S. How do different concentrations of Clostridium perfringens affect the quality of extended boar spermatozoa?. Anim Reprod Sci 2013; 140:83-91.

[37] Gaczarzewicz D, Udala J, Piasecka M, Blaszczyk B, Stankiewicz T. Bacterial contamination of boar semen and its relationship to sperm quality preserved in commercial extender containing gentamicin sulfate. Pol J Vet Sci 2016; 19(3):451-459. doi: 10.1515/pjvs-2016-0057.

[38] Zeyad A, Hamad M, Amor H, Hammadeh ME. Relationships between bacteriospermia, DNA integrity, nuclear protamine alteration, sperm quality and ICSI outcome. Reprod Biol 2018; 18:115-121.

[39] Goldberg AMG, Argenti LE, Faccin JE, Linck L, Santi M, Bernardi ML, et al. Risk factors for bacterial contamination during boar semen collection. Res Vet Sci 2013; 95:362-367.

[40] Althouse G. Sanitary procedures for the production of extended semen. Reprod Domest Anim 2008; 43:374-378.

[41] Ko J, Evans L, Althouse G. Toxicity effects of latex gloves on boar spermatozoa. Theriogenology 1989; 31:1159-1164.

[42] Glover T, Mann T. On the composition of boar semen. J Agric Sci 1954; 44:355-360.