COMPARISON OF CHARACTERIZATION OF FIGHTING ROOSTER (Gallus gallus) SEMEN EJACULATES RECOVERED BY ELECTROEJACULATION AND DORSAL MASSAGE TECHNIQUES

Abstract

Implementing alternatives methods to dorsal massage (e.g., electroejaculation) for recovering semen from fighting rooster, known to be very stressful due to its aggressiveness, has become a priority for breeders of this cock breed in Ecuador. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate two semen collection techniques in fighting roosters, one by electroejaculation (EE) and another by dorsal massage (DM) on seminal quality parameters. For this purpose, thirty attempts of semen recovery from six adult Spanish fighting roosters were carried out using DM (n = 12) and EE (n = 18). Electroejaculation was performed previous sedation, applying five stimulation cycles (of 2 s) generated from a handmade electroejaculation probe (9 to 12 V). The results showed that the EE produced lower response (P < 0.01) to semen ejaculation than the DM (44.4 % vs. 100.0 %, respectively). However, semen samples obtained by EE had better (P < 0.05) spermatic kinetic with greater values of straight-line velocity (VSL, µm/s), average path velocity (VAP, µm/s), and beat-cross frequency (BCF, Hz) as well as higher percentages (P < 0.01) of wobble and linearity compared to DM, irrespective of sperm viability. In addition, the number of urates present in the ejaculates obtained by EE was lower (P < 0.05) than those obtained by DM. In conclusion, electrical stimulation with prior sedation produced a low semen ejaculation response in fighting cocks. However, EE yielded semen ejaculates with better spermatic kinetic compared with the conventional dorsal massage technique.

Keywords

• rooster spermatozoa
• electroejaculation
• dorsal massage
• kinetic sperm.